Stormnet
-
Posts
236 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Stormnet
-
-
2 minutes ago, o Barão said:
Repara na primeira coisa que ele reclamou sobre o design. Que tinha que mover a torre do meio para a proa para aumentar o ângulo de tiro. Que isso não fazia sentido. Seguindo a mesma lógica , então os Nelson BB também não fazem sentido para ele. Ou será que fazem?
Mas faz sentido. Aquela torre tripla está bloqueada pelas baterias secundárias laterais, e o ângulo de tiro sofre por causa disso. Claramente tal disposição nunca permitiria disparar para trás, mas podia estar de uma forma em que podia ter um arco maior.
Podia substituir aquelas torres secundárias singulares por umas duplas e puxar para o lado, movendo também aquelas torres pequenas para outro lado onde não atrapalhavam, e assim tinha-se um arco de fogo lateral maior (e com menos peso).
Ou então podia mater aquelas torres todas, puxando-as para à frente com a superestrutura traseira, e assim colocava aquela primária atrás com um arco maior para à lateral (conseguiria disparar mais para a frente) e com a capacidade de disparar para trás.Os Nelson eram incapazes de disparar para trás, mas não bloqueavam a torre C com secundárias que restringiam desnecessariamente o seu arco lateral.
De qualquer das formas, não é a única falha deste design da IA. Utiliza secundárias de alto calibre semelhante às primárias (o que não acontece deste os semi-couraçados [descontinuados após o primeiro couraçado com calibres uniformes]) em torres singulares, para desnecessariamente acrescentar peso, e só tem 8 canhões secundários de baixo calibre, o que remove o propósito da existência destes visto que são insuficientes para as tarefas de baterias secundárias.
-
3 minutes ago, o Barão said:
So the Nelson BB designs are also a clown car? They didn't have any main they in the stern. Are they obsolete?
What does Nelson having forward main batteries have to do with the AI building mixed calliber ships well after the introduction of the dreadnought?
-
2
-
2
-
-
I'm waiting to see how long will it take for them to dump this sunken cost fallacy of a system and just use templates.
This image is from a discord user:
I'm a broken record at this time. (Almost) every player says "Ditch this AI, it just doesnt work, get templates.", GL says "No, wE WilL BAlaNce aNd pATch thIs AI".
After weeks of more wasted development fixing this little * * * *, we get another bug.
When will they get the message...
-
3
-
1
-
-
YES. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS!!!
After more than a year, it finnaly happened.
Now, lets see how good it is... -
After more than a year, we finnally got it.
Although the memories of the slightly dissapointing nature of v0.5 still makes me rather skeptical, as long as there arent crippling bugs and annoying framedrops, I'm all in on this one.
-
Well, Im late to this.
After my pessimistic rant on the v90 feedback thread, this does come at the right time.
Although the "We forgive your toxicity, drama, and agression" to criticism of your paying customers is... insulting at best, I think I can forgive you for calling us that.Even though this update might surprise me, I'm going to hold reservations until I see it in my PC. v0.5 wasnt that good of a experience. Just make sure I don't run into a barrage of bugs and glitches when I fire it up.
-
4
-
-
14 hours ago, Aceituna said:
So...it's been a long time since I posted something meaningful. I've been mostly inactive for the last what? Six months? And I think that this game and the community behind it is (or perhaps rather was) too important to me to just disappear. Some ideas came to my mind just a few minutes ago in the shower so I'd like to gather them in this goodbye letter (sort of) to the community. I am officially going dark now. I'll definitely stop by if there will ever be some progress worth mentioning in development. But for now...I am just too tired od this.
I am seriously afraid that the game development reached it's end. It just seems to be unable to break this never ending stalemate in development that has been here for a long, long time.
Damn guys...it's been two years. That's just hell of a lot time to make a game (especially if we take into account that they didn't start two years ago...they released an open alpha two years ago). During the time we didn't receive vast majority of what we were promised to get for our money. Now a lot of people feel scammed of their money and I feel that way to. But do you know what hurts me more than the fifty euros I paid for unfulfilled promises? That I put my anticipation and excitement into this project. And not just mine. We had so much fun discussing here with the people od the same interest... But most of them are gone. They got tired and bored just like me. Now I rarely see those old known nicks popping out in my alerts....
It's such a shame what happened to the game. Not only because it would have been a unique, great game but also because I believe it could have had an amazing community. Damn it was only around alpha and yet this was the best community I have ever had the honor to be part of... For that I'd like to thank you all. It has been such fun with you. It was you who made this game such fun for me. Not the devs. And to the end there is one person without whom the UA:D community wouldn't even be a UA:D community: @Cptbarney I'd like to thank you Barney for what you did for the community. I think that most od the community would agree with me when I say that you've been the most important figure of this forum and of this community. Once again...thank you.
I am kind of feeling the same at this. The development is very slow and has been slowing down even more lately.
The Core patch was promised for last august. Even if you count the pandemic, it should have only been delayed for about 6 months, and thus release early this year. And then the january/february launch was missed. Its November, and we only got 0.5.
When we ask for more info on the state of the campaign, their replies are always "We are working on the campaign, more info to come.". We almost have to beg them to tell us about the game.
I came into this game out of curiosity, last October, as Im interested into buildings games, not even knowing what a cruiser or destroyer really were. I learned A LOT about naval warfare because of it and the community, and I am grateful for that. I had high hopes for this project, and the potential new features like modular hulls, gun designers, and so oncould bring. I spent a lot of time giving feedback and especially ideas for new content to expand the game.
But then time passed. Alphas came only every 2/3 months, to add a minor feature or two, a bunch of hulls (many copypasted resizes). Core was always "coming soon". And I began to lose interest. Call me spoiled, but as someone who tracked the development of Stormworks since v0.4, I was spoiled with constant streams of devblogs, new features, and such that kept me hooked, almost every 2-4 weeks. Yet, UAD takes so long I no longer care.
It took them 7 months to add more turrets to the italians and russians. I know people that could put out these simplistic models in at most a few days. I no longer feel invested in giving them more ideas, because I know they wont put them into the game, or will take months to give us a halfbaked version of them.I am part of two communities that were built around this game. One was bigger and the other one smaller. Both were very active at the begining. As excitement died down, the first one detached from UAD and rebranded itself as a naval oriented server, and survived. The second one was too reliant on the game to be able to do the same, and is now slowly shriveling and dying, and I cant do more than sit and watch.
This sounds like a very pessimistic rant, but that is what it is. UA:D as an idea, a RtW game with good 3D graphics was great, but an idea is only as good as its execution. And the execution is a sluggish mess. If you go to the steam discussions, it is a slaughter there, with people bashing the game without stopping.
At this point I care more about the communities built around this game (and my rank in them) than the actual game. I want to love UAD so hard, but I feel like I get spit in the face everytime I do so.
I dont know how to end this post.
-
8 hours ago, o Barão said:
A reshade visuals modification for UAD. v1
Objective:
- Replace the vanilla look from UAD for one more realistic.
- Reworked the image details; shadows; clarity and colours.
Installation:
Download reshade: https://reshade.me/
Install reshade ( i recommend install all shaders just in case no one is missing ) in the "build.exe" from this location: C:\...\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts\default\game
Download NewHorizons mod: https://app.box.com/s/zz9se63lpf1ccpl8yddlqd4rohz30kav
Apply the NewHorizons.ini into the reshade program inside the game.
Happy hunting, the Baron.
Images.
Don't forget to share your screenshots and feedback!
Nice job. It isnt perfect, as the colors can look a tad unsaturated on some ocasions, but it shows that small little tweaks to the game can make a big diference in some areas.
I hope the devs are willing to implement these tiny tweaks on a more polished way. I doubt these would take more than a week, especially with this as a source.
-
5
-
-
2 hours ago, Skeksis said:
Dev's are impervious to anything that's not aligned with their expectations, I don't think you understand that either.
A dev that thinks he his impervious to anything that he does not expect, either doesnt care about making profit or is delusional at best.
Take a look at the steam community discussions:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/?fp=3
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/?fp=2
https://steamcommunity.com/app/1069660/discussions/
Scrool down throught that, what you see? You see a few questions here and there and suggestions, but a lot of this is talking shit about the game and the development. And not talking shit just for talking shit.You see, "Why are the formations broken in a game where they are vital?", "Why keep using slider shit instead of type in values?" (this one is now deprecated, but still, they tried fixing it without actually adressing the issue), and there are A LOT of "Why is this game so out of squedule?", "Why do updates take forever to come and deliver actual content?", "Why is this so buggy?".
Mind you, the people on Steam are supposed to be the next big wave of new players. And nearly everyone there is shitting on the (big) flaws of this game and the development. Unless GL is ready to lose profit (not many people will buy into something that is said by plenty of others to be a bad purchase), they really need to align their expectations with those of the playerbase.
Failing to do so is a recipe to losing money. Corporations that try to sell stuff that their clients genuinely dont want lose money. Developers that are on the way to doing so, they too risk losing money.
There is a big diference between trying to get the playerbase not to expect a masterpiece, and trying to make them accept a lackluster product.-
4
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, DougToss said:
Lol cancel culture is when you condemn naziism, “a logical and different worldview”.
Lets not waste anymore of our time on him.
Report him and move on.-
5
-
-
But anyways, back to the topic, we need more impactfull explosions.
Like, the explosions we hear are... bland. Yeah, we hear some echo and whatnot, but they dont feel that impactful. Besides they feel repetitive. If you ignore the music, the sounds described below are pretty much 95% what you are gonna hear.I keep bringing up the Total War Shogun 2 example of @Danvanthevacuumman because, depite being 10 years old, it looks great. Sure, some of this stuff is rather arcadey and cinematic and will have to be toned down (no, ships dont explode in massive fireballs following death), but the explosions feel so, OHH! The fireball, the smoke, the shards of the ships flying into the sky. We dont just get "baaankle" and then the texture of a hole apears with a flame. It also has the controls more stylized (which looks good) and they have sounds. Yeah, probably hearing "Klinks" for 2 hours may get annoying, so I suggest aplying diferent sounds to diferent controls. Like the "Klink" for changing speed (like if you were pulling a lever on the ship). Limited voice callouts would be nice too.
-
On 10/17/2021 at 8:34 AM, Elrerune The Honorbound said:
Ludicrously expensive?? It may be for you lol. Not here where I live. Some girls here have sneakers shoes that cost up to 12000 kunas, that's double the price of those headphones. And guys around town are owning computer parts that cost as much. That's a normal price for good headphones. If you don't believe it you're deaf.
Yeah, we dont know where you live somewhere in Croatia, but sorry that a spoiled kid is not the target audience for most games without microtransactions.
Yeah, those may be good premium headphones, but you dont need premium stuff to have a decent experience. A decent 2.1 system, for at most 100$ should be enought for most stuff the average joe will ever hear. Besides, even if our systems are shit (they aren't), there is stuff which sounds better. UAD sounds lackluster when compared to other stuff running on the exact same system.
Pop this video on your 1000$ sound system and compare it to UAD. https://www.youtube.com/embed/9-Ov-j1RPIU?enablejsapi=1
Does your system automatically put UAD to the level of a game with over a decade.
On 10/17/2021 at 8:34 AM, Elrerune The Honorbound said:You're nonsense man. What proof do you have that this game uses 1930 recording? And even the audio/video recordings of that time can be scanned up to 4K video and superb sound when done properly. A good audio setup changes everything.
I get a strong impressionI believe you are either retarded or just trolling. Its just so painfully stupid either way.
First of all, the 1930 Audio was an anology on how good hardware cannot magically make bad sounds sound good. Hardware that can do so is actively editing them, and its not just tuning them at the begining that will automatically do the job. If you make explosions sound more powerfull and echo-y, you are gonna have ship sounds, music, and caracters (in other games) sounding weirdly strong and emotional even at moments where they shouldnt.
Yeah, old recordings can be scanned and improved, but they rarely match 2021 native movies. And that is done through AI and studio-ing, not throught a (even if expensive) audio-card.
Instead of making the consumer get lots of hardware and have to edit the sounds themselves like they work in a studio and make them good, why not just improve the sounds on the game's end so people dont have to deal with this issue?"And "2020 quality"? What would you know about that? Are you drawing examples from the mp3s you play and download from pirated cd rips or some catastrophically compressed bit starved 2 0 audio streams in some 720p movie rips you watch??? LMAO to that!"
Buddy, just because we are not rich doesnt mean we "poor people" live in the 1990s. We have several other games and movies (some even a decade old with no remasters whatsoever), including indie ones with small budgets that outperform UAD in terms of sound and graphics.
"I don't understand what that means I don't speak Brit."
What did the evil British with tophats and monocles did to you that made you a little tramatized child?
At this point, you are either completely retarted, or the least funny troll I have ever seen. Either way, since you dont like english (language of the bad and evil british), I am gonna say to you in portuguese "Cala-te, vai dar uma volta, e para de ser um cretino mimado e irritante.".Go ahead and translate that last part. I know you will.
-
5
-
-
???
Sorry, but what?
-
2 hours ago, Elrerune The Honorbound said:
I don't think there are any ways to make this part work. And I know a bit about it. First fact in custom missions there is no calculation for victory at sea after sinking a capital ship, you have to sing all of the small ones too. So in custom missions it should be control of the fire power superiority first.
I see your point.
2 hours ago, Elrerune The Honorbound said:Nah I can hardly see any potential in this game. First of all it uses an archaic graphical system which is a bad sign because we are in 2021 and pc graphical hardware has advanced far beyond even for low budget games like this.
The graphics look bland, yes, but there is far worst cases. But I see your point here too.
2 hours ago, Elrerune The Honorbound said:The concept of the gameplay is extremely archaic feeling, we cant even shoot the guns, we just click and do nothing. the fact that the game calculates everything which could be fun gameplay is a boring concept. We should be able to aim and shoot the guns ourselves and to see through a rangefinder and other equipment and steer the ships ourselves.
Sorry, but this is (supposed to be) a realistic RTS. In 90% of RTSs, you dont direct control the unit, because there is often no point in it. You are supposed to control several units, not one. Its a strategy type genre, not an action one. Besides, of all RTS-Genres, you had to pick realistic naval warfare, the type of combat where realistically you sit for maybe even hours aiming at the enemy with, shooting, missing, waiting for a 30 second reload, and repeat until you are lucky to get a hit after 10 salvos.
Sorry, but this is not WoWs.
If you want a build-your-ship action game, I agree with barney, pick waves of steel. You will be able to build your ship to surprisingly great detail and direct control it all you want.
2 hours ago, Elrerune The Honorbound said:the models are really bad and etc.
Its not that the models themselves are bad. But GL often recycles and resizes them, and takes too long to make new ones. It is a issue of insuficient quantity, not a issue about the quality of the models themselves.2 hours ago, Elrerune The Honorbound said:there are even no cool ships, only a few German ones. So this game is just disappointing at this piont.
No, cool ships, what does that mean? No historical ships? No Super-Battleships? That is a very vague statement.
And yes, the game is disapointing at this point. But not because it isnt build-your-ship WoWs, but because it is failing to recreate the (great) 3D Rule the Waves concept it set out to.-
3
-
1
-
-
27 minutes ago, neph said:
All these philosophical comparisons to real life are absurd. It's a game; this is an optimization problem. Why would you compare the AI's struggles to historical approaches to ship design? The AI knows nothing of historical design and never will. Criticizing it will neither hurt its feeling or help the developers. It does not identify issues with the design model as they actually exist; it's just pretentious. Congrats, you cleverly & devastatingly insulted an algorithm. It'll never know or care. Unhelpful.
The point of that was to show (some) people that the AI is not magically working now like some say. In its current state, its still not working. Its because that, despite several (and I mean several) attempts at balancing the AI, it is still broken as of now, that I leads me and some to conclude that likely the system is flawed at its core. You can patch a good if rough system. One that apears to never work no matter how much efford is put into seems like it simply is flawed to the core, and all the fixing in the world may make it work better, but never properly.
A lot of it can be optimized. The choosing of tech, systems, and callibers may be improved.
But it still requires templates like you say.
And even if the AI stops going with stupid decisions, without disposition templates, will this fix the big issues with turret disposition? Some of those flawed ships could work by moving the pieces. You proposed a doctrine type of template (which is still a template), that could fix the weird choice of callibers, armor, and speed (maybe even subsystems), but the AI may still mess stuff up with the right pieces and ideas by just putting the pieces in the wrong place. You tell the AI to use 8 15" turrets for this hull and doctrine, what will stop it front cramming those at the front in barbettes for no reason? IOr putting them in quad turrets at the back? Will thisallowforce it to place the stuff where it needs to be placed at?
-
3
-
-
8 hours ago, Skeksis said:
But adaptive AI can/is/will be doing the same thing.
People in general, well free will internet people, will complain first because... well that's what internet people do, well kinda IRL too, there's little comeback on internet too.
When you said, and I quote, "It was painful to read through this thread", you must have thought these were all the facts, but they are not, here in this thread they are the just the complaints and/or alpha testing reports, just a cross-section of AI designs. It's not the true representation of what the AI is actually accomplishing.
Nobody posts good AI designs, well not generally anyway. So by not playing the game you're not getting the full representation of what the AI is doing. Though I can understand your conclusion based only on these reports. I think you don't have the facts of good AI designs so far.
The fact is, from a player opinion, generally, the AI is producing great designs, not all the time but it is a WIP. We don't actually need templates.
PS, though it would be nice to have some 'named' ships e.g. Bismarck etc. from time to time.
Adaptive AI, great designs?
All claims that I decided to test, not with arguing, but with experimenting. 4 consecutive battles featuring most classes on each side, all with AI generated designs. So lets jump into it.1911 Austria-Hungary VS United States
So, first design ever with Auto-Generate going into the battle and its a blunder.
1 Mixing lots of callibers
2 Non-uniform main-gun armaments. This is not 1905. We are well in the dreadnought era.
3 Giving the only 20 cm turret (only one of that calliber) a large barbette it doesnt need. You could use something smaller
4 The wing turrets cannot fire backwards, they are blocked by secondaries.
5 That sec behind the 20 cm has a barbette... for reasons (I suspect it is to fire over the single 5.1s next to it... great fix I know)
I clicked the button another 3/4 times before having to settle on this
Again, similar blunders
1 Mixing lots of callibers
2 Non-uniform main-gun armaments.
3 Giving the that 15 cm turret an excessively big barbette.But ofc, the AI also likes to inovate in failing
4 Those side 15 cm could be pulled back to allow the forward turret to fire back wards, but nope.
5 There is a funnel right behing the secondary tower... wanna smoke sausages?
But lets sail gloriously into battle...
S***.
Alright, this one may be somewhat acceptable.
That B turret probably doesnt need a barbette that big and tall, and you likely dont need those 4 single 7.6cm, but its ok-ish as a destroyer.
Yet again, the AI fails in the classic ways while also innovating in how to middle-finger naval design.
1 Excessively large barbettes for the B and "C" (not a main turret, but another lone high-calliber secondary).
2 Single side turrets... why?
3 The funnel, that could be perfectly on the superstructure, is outside, because reasons.
4 Another "Collect the callibers" ship.At least it is very fast... Not that its gonna matter with the pathetic firepower of 9"s mains.
Why is this CA exactly like a pre-dreadnought? Heh, doesnt matter for the design.
This thing is a Light-Heavy-Cruiser. Its very light, and it only has a pair of double 15.2, 4 casemated 7.6, and 2 casemated 5.1 as it's firepower. Enought for a 1911 CA? Doubt it.
That ship must be sinking anyways, the water level is that tall.
Im pretty sure that is a early 1900s CA hull, but anyways, there is some mixing of sec calliber, and those single 17.8 may be slightly overkill in calliber but not much in rate-of-fire/accuracy ratio.
Also, I just noticed that the Light Cruiser is bigger in tonnage than the CA above... LOL.
This one is not a complete blunder, and is a better CA than the pseudo CL-CA above, but it still mixes secondary callibers for no reason
Not a complete blunder (it actually picks the right sized barbettes, HOORAY), and it does have a very good speed for the time while still keeping some acceptable armor (still would fit better being a BC), but still some doubtful design decisions, including:
1 Why is there a barbette at the back (spoiler, to fire above the secs).
2 Some mixing of calllibers.
3 It has a ABC-Z (X? I never know) layout, but it doesnt pull the superstructure back to lay the turrets. This leads to me to question the weight balance on them. One must suspect is a large front weight offset.
This one has a pretty weak firepower of 4x 2 12"s, and mixes callibers, but its not that stupid at least...
1931/1932 British Empire VS Russian Empire
This one is pretty sluggist. I think 1930s ships could be faster than 22.6 knots.
The main firepower is very good for a ship its size, and it has thick armor too, but it only has 1 tripple 15.2 and 4 7.6 cm as seccondary batteries. It likely sacrifices on speed to get this armor and firepower.I has a mediocre speed and secondary armaments, but I think it earns the "Good design" award based on the firepower and protection.
Lots and lots of single, double, and tripple 5.1s and 7.6s. Coupled with torp launchers blocking the rear turret.
Again, not a complete failure, but could use several layout optimizations.
Also the name "Porpoise". Say that to a friend and see if you 2 can keep a straight face.
This DD aint getting the benefit of the doubt.
The confusing and senseless use of barbettes at the front, the 5.1s being scattered around the ship. At least it has good torp armaments.
This CA has a weaker firepower than Porpoise, with secs and torps blocking the front turrets, turrets in weird layouts. Its just... confusing...
At least it beats Porpoise in speed... wait, isn't it supposed to be the CL beating the CA in speed and vice versa for firepower?
Going back to the classics, the AI forgets correctly-sized barbettes exists, that you need more secondary armaments than a single double 20 cm and several 5.1s and 7.6s scattered across the deck blocking the main turrets fire arc, and again, funnel behind sec tower.
I forgot to take another pic of this one when my ships identified it. While I cant see its stats nor its overall layout (and thus cant say if it is completely bonkers), you can see those secs are located on the very edge of the deck. Their ring must be drilled on the belt armor.
AGAIN, more mixing of callibers, using a large high calliber secondary alone (though this time they actually bothered to add more secs than that), and mediocre firepower (15 13" cannons do not make up the armament of a good 60.000 ton ship in 1932).
First of all, this is clearly a recycled destroyer hull.
Second, this thing has several (and I mean several) 12 cm double turrets because... bigger tripples bad?
Third, that secondary tower is being harrased by both a non-existant rear view and smoke.
This one gets a pass. While the layout is a bit weird, I dont see much pea-brain logic here.
1940 Germany VS Italy
(I was getting a bit tired at this point so I shortened the battles)
We start off by rather weak main batteriy for something this size, even more mixing of callibers and more single turret batteries. At least it has good armor.
This one is alright. Some mixing of sec callibers, but picked appropriate secondary armaments, and has a decent main battery.
Im getting real tired now, so lets wrap this up with one final battle.
1940 Japan VS France
Back in force,the AI reveals to us nonsensical use of barbettes (you dont need a barbette that tall buddy [and that thing doesnt look wide enought anyways] and you wouldnt need a barbette at the back if you didnt cram similar calliber secondaries there), more weak firepower, and mixing callibers... AGAIN.
I have a few questions.
1 Why is your 14k ton CA almost as strong as your 50k ton battlecruiser in terms of armor (and a bit of firepower). And why is it slower than an average battleship? And if you like calliber mixing so much, why also mix the barrel amount of the 5.1s?
If these questions dont matter, then I think this ship is alright too.
Sigh, it doesnt end, does it?
MORE calliber mixing.
MORE funnels harrasing rear towers.
MORE anorexic barbettes.
Mix that calliber,
Put a barbetted sec (belonging to a 1 turret battery) turret in front of the rear X gun,
And more mediocre firepower.
It is fast and has a reasonable armount of armor... at least.
But its sinking pretty much.
And that marks the end of my experiment. The results?1 or 2 actually good ships
A couple of alright ships
Several flawed ones
A bunch of complete garbage designs.Does this sound like great designs and great "adaptive" AI? Dont think so.
Say it's great now.
-
3
-
-
19 hours ago, neph said:
Not sure that that's "nonsensical barbette placement", the C barbette is built-in to the hull.
Also, an A/B/C/D/E turret configuration... thinking about the nomenclature cracked me up a few times writing this haha
You are right, looking more closely I see a barbette, so it may not be as braindead as I thought. But it still seems weird to have a massive barbette at the B turret for no reason. What is its porpose?
To fire forwards? Then remove that and let the C turret do it, as that barbette blocks C from doing so. Same firepower for less weight.
Is it to fire be able to aim further back and bypass the superstructure? But then, with that superimposed C turret, the benefit is neglectible.
I think I know why the AI actually did this. A third look reveals a few secondary guns next to the B turret. The AI often priorises deck placement of secs over proper weight and barbette management. If you check my retarded meme-list of AI fails, number 16 "Big turrets are afraid of piranha secs roaming the decks, so they hide on top of barbettes.".
This is one of the flaws of the AI. Smaller mistakes that look inocent at first but proove idiotic upon a second thought.
Now, if a player wants to do this, then he should be allowed. We actually (or at least usually) know what we are doing, and we may have an idea in my or be just messing around. The porpose of the AI is to be a challenge, not to mess around.Thinking twice, I look a bit weird responding in this big passive-agressive wall of text... heh.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, RedParadize said:
Doesn't clearly belong in the clown car tread, as there is merit to paper tiger design, I just trough it was worth mentioning:
guns are 15"er.It does belong here.
The nonsensical barbette placement adding weight and blocking turrets, the sluggish speed.-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:
Also am I the only one who wants German triple guns from 15inch to 20inch to look like this.
Based
-
3
-
-
So, they finnaly added new turrets for the Russians and Italians, after 7 months of asking and bumping a thread.
But this is only the tip of the iceberg, there are still several nations that need some turret designs. One of these is Germany.Germany as of now lacks any quad turret, and must therefore resort to using BRITISH ones, so I want to give some designs (provided by @Shiki) the devs could use to make new ones.
The first one is best described as "2 Bismark turrets glued togheder"
The second one is more standardised and... less weird
And the last one goes for a more Richelieu look, with a slight gap between each cannon pair (where likely is an armored bulkhead).
Soo... I guess model them and put in the game? And this time, dont take 7 months to do so please?-
4
-
-
On 9/27/2021 at 5:20 PM, Arrigo74 said:
Here are my last adversaries in Power of the Dreadnought... the secondary (shielded) turret on a barbette is a must... as the line of secondaries on the side... basically can the AI design a dreadnought?
It can design good ships, but it does have a very bad f***-up rate of shitty designs.
-
1
-
-
Going back to the barbettes, why the F*** is this still an issue?
(image by RedWing)
Is it that hard to make a "tag" for "accepted callibers" so the AI doesnt F this up? I get the AI making glass cannons. I get them messing the designs on the "Idea" level. But I dont get them pulling this kind of stuff off because it simply is not possible for us.
One of the most common feedback of this game is the AI. It makes impossible OP ships, it makes brain-dead ships, and it makes ships that overlap somewhat. And the most common solution is to make a list of presets that the AI can partially modify, so they look diferent, but the f*** up rate is drastically reduced.Yes, the AI has gotten much better. But it is still flawed and doing stupid s***. The very good ships it ocasionally makes are likely derived from sheer luck (it just happened to pick values that actually make sense).
At this point I suspect it is just a Sunken Cost Falacy.
We, the players, are more than willing to supply working designs for the devs to use. Give up wasting time patching this AI that will never properly work.-
3
-
2
-
-
#stop_turret_rape
Look at those stats, and tell me if they are acceptable for a 66k ton ship in 1940.
-
Remember this half-retarded meme list I made of all the AI fails I knew about 5 months ago? Well, many of these flaws are apparently still in, and I think I can even expand it even more.
1 - Anorexia barbettes.2 - Thicc barbettes (also known as Caps Lock + Shift).
3 - Secs are feeling lonely here.
4 - Collect all the secondary callibers in UAD!
5 - Aft Weight Offset club. With representatives from all classes.
6 - ITS HMS NELSON TIME!
7 - You get a barbette! And you get a barbette! Everybody gets a barbette!
8 - Pick 'n' mix single, double, and triple turrets. - deprecated?
9 - Mix 'n' match funnels.
10 - WE WANT PLANES, AND WE WANT THEM NOW!
11 - Vision and field of view is for pussies.
12 - With enought funnels, you can smoke screen all the time. Idea by Malboro. - deprecated?
13 - Broadside frigates' club. - deprecated?
14 - Barbettes dont always need a gun on them. - deprecated
15 - Pre-dreadnoughts embody the best of naval design and should be built in modern times.
16 - Big turrets are afraid of piranha secs roaming the decks, so they hide on top of barbettes.
17 - Im not gonna be Yamato'ed or Bismark'ed if I have enought AA secs.
18 - ♫ Going up the waves! Going down the waves! Shaking left and shaking right, vomit all over the place! ♫
19 - Where armor
20 - Tug boats are underrated warships. Change my mind. - deprecated?
21 - I farm turrets, and ships do that so well.
22 - Underwater turrets just work. - deprecated
23 - Tall barbettes show your dominant position to the enemy.
24 - "Deja vu, I've been in this place before" top speed.
25 - Remember to have your turrets huddle together for warmth. - deprecated?26
- Sir, the 3x4 17-inch guns are too heavy! We can't fit them on!
- Remove the superstructure and make the funnel as small as possible, that'll save weight.27 - Destroyers aren't a thing. Don't need secondary batteries.
28 - Monitors rule the seas. - deprecated?
29 - Don't put guns on warships if the budget doesn't allow for them. - deprecated
30 - Big turrets are like big balls. Everybody looks at them and understand YOU are the alpha.
NEW31 -
♫ Top turret, top turret,
Top turret, top turret.
Its a turret, YEAH!
A secondary turret!
A secondary turret,
On top of a primary turret. ♫
-
1
-
Clown Car Thread
in General Discussions
Posted
I haven't played UA:D since core v0.5, yet it both pains and warms my heart that this threat is still going with strong AI stupidity contenders.