Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Stormnet

Members2
  • Posts

    236
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

Everything posted by Stormnet

  1. The AI still hasnt mastered barbettes.
  2. Clown car thread has also been lacking in designs lately. I think the AI is finnaly begining to just make "Ok" ships. Not (usually) bad enought for Clown Car, but not anywhere near expert. Ofc, ocasionally it will make a bad ship and other times it will make a good one by chance, but I think the average is now okay. EDIT: I have to remove what I said. After bumping the clown car thread, all of a sudden this exploded.
  3. Like @admiralsnackbar said, these missions were made a long time ago when building was much diferent. I remember that WW1 mission where I was able to shove a 15.7" belt on a single ship with only 6x 12" guns and win this over atrittion (a design which now is grossly overweight). Ships back then simply were more powerfull. But now we have more limitations, while the AI which likely is using presets made back them (also the only situations where the AI uses presets) that allow it to field warships that the player cannot. It also doesnt help when dificulty in those missions, even back then, was basically "Here's a pair of 20k ton BCs, go kill that fleet full of Iowas", in other words, the dificulty wasnt based on smart ship design but artificial "Make a miracle" type of dificulty.
  4. YYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  5. Yeah, they are a bit limiting. But people want them, so we want at least visual variety on them. They are 2 thirds of the early game content after all, and people still want to make these forgotten casemated things. Yeah, people like big ships they can customize. The issue is, we dont want just big ships. Variety and immersion dont come in just seeing diverse (and unlrealistic) modern big ships. We also want the tiny ones, the old ones, etc. If you just fought large modern BBs and BCs for the entire game, you would be bored no matter how diverse their design was. The issue is not big ships being a thing. Without aircraft becoming dominant, SBBs are the mandatory end-game content. We want big ships. But they are still end-game content. You have 4 decades (in-game) of gameplay before you can start building these (and assuming you even have the resources), early, mid, and late game are still a thing, and you wont play throught an entire undeveloped game mode just to get to the last part where things get interesting. The issue is not modern big ships being a thing, the issue is them having so much attention in neglect of other classes and eras. Yes we want "more placement options", but not really in the sence of large deck space. We wanted modular hulls, custom superstructures, turret designer, more actually unique hulls. We dont want a laundry list of copypasted big ships with the same parts because muh deck space. Yes, it helps, but it only goes so far before it just becomes tedious and repetitive. Yes, late era ships were more likely to thrive. And I agree, post dreadnought hulls were inevitable. The major issue is that now large post dreadnought hulls seem to be the only meta, and its clear they are getting far more attention from the devs. Other classes, sizes, and eras have been neglected. As said, I dissagree with Tousansons. Personally, I want big and even huge ships to exist. But I also want pre-dreadnoughts, semi-dreadnoughts, dreadnoughts, DDs, CLs, CAs, TPs (maybe even transports?), small battleships, and such. Big modern ships are cool and awesome, but they are not the entire game. This is not another WW2 naval kombat game. This is a game inspired in RTW, and thus must develop all eras from the late 1800s/early 1900s till the end of WW2.
  6. Now that devs are slowly tacking this issue, this stuff should come in handy. Quad turrets in 1914? Sign me up!
  7. New Special Italian Guns for 3-inch up to 8-inch caliber ranging from Mark 3 to Mark 5. New Special Italian Guns for 12-inch up to 20-inch ranging from Mark 1 to Mark 5. New Special Russian guns for 2-inch up to 8-inch ranging from Mark 3 to Mark 5. New Special Russian Guns for 9-inch up to 20-inch ranging from Mark 1 to Mark 5.
  8. Core finnaly coming?! HOOORAY. Finnaly I dont have to spend 70% of battles rebuilding my ships. And thank ya @Cptbarney for the ping
  9. FINALLY! Actual info about the campaign! Imma spread the word.
  10. Waves of Steel (a Warship Gunner inspired game with submarines that transform into battleships) does this and barbettes better than UAD... Yikes.
  11. I doubt it. UAD is an RTS. With the exceptiong of a few games like Men at War, barely any RTS allows unit fire control. Also, this isnt like WoWs, most battles are long range and with low hit probability. You arent gonna be doing fire solutions, attempting 20 manual salvos with 20 sec reloads to get one single hit. And aiming to specific compartments is a waste of time except at very short ranges. Naval warfare (at least until the end of WW2) was mostly trying to hit your enemy in the first place. They werent gonna try to hit the engine room from 12km. Nice suggestion, but its a gimmick imo that wouldnt work with UAD.
  12. Sorry to ping you @Nick Thomadis but I have to ask when will we really get to know more about the campaign. I dont want to sound passive-agressive, but I am at a point where, as a paying customer, I want... no, I demand to know more about the status of the campaign and how will it work. The last time someone asked this was mid June on this post: The last time we actually saw a reply from you about this was on a post I started on the 22 of April: and it was basically "We'll share more info as soon as possible". At the time I was satisfied with the response, however months followed with no info. Right now, there isnt much concentrated info about the campaign and core patch overall. Unless you dig deep into the forum and look for every comment, thread and speculation, "its gonna look like Rule the Waves" and those leaked screenshots and videos (and that is gonna save stuff) of the closed-alpha is all we really know about the campaign stuff that isnt already in the game. I dont need to know everithing, as everithing is not done yet and is subject to changes, but could you show us some screenshots and/or descriptions about the stuff that is somewhat finished about the campaign? Doesnt need to be a half hour devblog, could just be a 5 min post of "This works like this, that works like that, and this is a screenshot of something". I am not questioning the work you guys are doing at GL. Im sure pushing out this campaign is not easy, and I dont want to pressure nor look entitled. I really want this project to succees as much as you do. But I am starved of info about the future of this project, and communication on a early access is almost as important as the game itself, and reapeating myself, I really want some info of any kind about the campaign. Tell us something please, and not next year. Thanks for reading this.
  13. Well, this is your opinion, so its perfectly fine to disagree. This is my view on this. 1 and 2 They boost considerably your acceleration and turning speed, besides reducting damage likelyhood and debuffs to the engine. They are almost a no brainer for any large ship imo. You better have torp V protection if you dont have these, otherwise you will stress when you see a wave of torps aproaching your BB. 3 I think I have seen flashfires from hits to other parts of the ship that arent the turret, but if what you say is right about turret armor, then they may not be as useful as I previously thought. 4 and 6 Again, these are reliant on flashfires being nulled by turret armor like you said. If not, whatever fully pens your ship armor is gonna hit some juicy citadel meat inside. 5 Anti-flood not worth it? Huh... Yes it is. 90% of the times your ship will sink from flooding. Pretty much everithing that is protecting your ship insides atm besides armor (that can still be penned) is the bulkhead slider. Besides the bulkheads, if you get a bad torp or shell hit, you are gonna be praying your ship stops those floods. I've seen what happens to ships with flood protection and those who dont have it. 6 I sometimes just set it to heavy to save weight, but I see your point. 7 I see your point here, though I usually also max it out. Depends on yout playstyle. If you are playing destroyer war and wiggle left and right, it somewhat of a no brainer to have.
  14. Not much has happened around here. Mostly people suggesting new stuff to add/be fixed. A discussion about whether or not a map is needed for an RTS. However, seperate options for propeller/shell charge explosives have been confirmed by Nick for the next patch, so maybe there's that. Otherwise, not much else has happened.
  15. Awesome! Thought I hope design saving also comes...
  16. I think it might be related on how multiple barrels recoil can afect eachothers accuracy and how it is harder to see the splashes of each turret/barrel. Thought in real life, tech like rangefinders and good fire-control and firing salvos with a slight delay helped nearly nullify this.
  17. Thanks for your work at researching this.
  18. There is the problem that those minor nations either didnt last long (Austria-Hungary looking at you) or pretty much bought all of their ships to european powers (not seing the chinese make many BBs). The exceptions are maybe Russia and Italy, that did last longer (thought with diferent covers) and did produce some ships of their own. If you dont want them to be so repetitive, the only solution is to go semi-historical and design stuff that didnt exist but could have back then.
  19. Yeah, I know that. Same for towers. There are DD towers whose size is comparable to 2 inch cannons... Tiny people... I hoped instead of resizing, for once the devs actually delivered several unique hulls... Let's hope once core is done they can start really focusing on delivering more actual content.
  20. Right now, WW1 era russian BCs are just resized dreadnought hulls, so to change that and add more variety, why not add the Borodino class (also known as Izmail-class) battlecruiser hulls? Construction of these started in 1912, 4 ordered, and they were laid down on 1915, but the construction ceased during the russian revolution and was never restarted. But we do have an idea about how the hull looked and how the ship would likely look like, including turrets (4x tripple 14" turrets) and tower (probably a cylindrical design). They were to have a speed of 26.5 knots. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borodino-class_battlecruiser https://www.naval-encyclopedia.com/ww1/russia/borodino-class-battlecruisers/ Photoshop of Gangut of what the Borodinos could have looked like. Artwork depicting the BCs Launch of Izmail hull, June 1915 Images from an unknown book Just hope you add it next update if you decide to add new hulls.
  21. Im not gonna go into a big story and yada yada. Long story short, casemate metal covers look bad. https://imgur.com/a/ZaRmS5C The first is from a random Austria-Hungary 1914 dreadnought hull. The second is from the Battleship III hull from same faction in 1899. Notice how the textures just dont fit it? The first one, the metal looks horribly rought. It doesnt look smooth or at least flat, it looks very bumpy for some reason. The second one, while not as bad, still looks rought (also, the round casemates are blocky). Could you update these with some better looking textures? Even using the hull metal plates textures would look better. https://imgur.com/a/r3g0vdV 1915 british random BB/BC tower Do I even need to say what is wrong with these ones? Take a look at USS Texas Look at how smooth those covers are. They look better as a 107 year old ship than a brand new one in UA:D.
  22. Im gonna make a numbers argument instead. If a map isnt needed, then why do the vast majority of RTS games (naval or on land) feature one? War on the Sea has a map, Rule the Waves is the map, so many naval RTS games either have a map or a minimap. What makes UA:D so special that I doesnt need one? Most of these games also dont usually pass the 40 ships mark, but they have a map. "Feedback so far hasn’t being conclusive or evidential enough to show how that everybody obstacles will be resolve without decreasing 3D command content/volume with a 2D map. 3D interaction is this game content, to command over a battlefield in 3D, you can’t take that away for QOL, not in this case. QOL has to be balanced so as not to diminish actual game content." And no. This isnt gonna reduce the 3D interation, all the orders and such will still be sent from "3D mode". The reason we bought a 3D Rule the Waves is to have nice looking 3D graphics. Im not gonna spend the entire battle on map mode. I wanna watch explosions and such. But we need a minimap/map to see how is the overall battle. I need to know where the known enemy ships are overall to plan for. Where to reunite my forces, what weakspots on the enemy battlelines, what ships they have (that I know of) and where, and doing that by panning is not by skill, its just boring. As it was said above, admirals had dedicated staff working on gathering data from radars, lookouts, other ships, radio transmissions, and so on and then using that data to present a map of the overall battle that the Admiral could use to make decisions on. Right now we have to both scout, mentaly piece the map togheder, and make decisions on that. While we do have a god-ability at scouting, mentally piecing the positions of potentially 40 ships and their classes is a nightmare. And yes, Im not going to only recon stuff by a map. Panning will still be perfectly okay for most situations. But there are gonna be those 10-20% of large number battles that simply need a map for coordination. We need something like this: https://www.youtube.com/embed/9-Ov-j1RPIU?enablejsapi=1 See this game? The numbers and "playground" size are much smaller than those of UA:D. But it has a map. Do you see any reduction on 3D interaction? Does he only stare at the map? NO! 3D interation like you said is never detrimented. The ships are still commanded in 3D, most of the recon is done by panning. The game mode even has time control. But he does pull up the map when he needs a quick look at the overall fleet status. Maybe you are a hardcore gamer that wants an challenge, and that's fine if you dont want features to be dumbed down. But lacking a basic feature that pretty much any game in the genre has is not a challenge, its just either an imcomplete game or a show of poor game design.
  23. The AI is a secondary UAD calliber collector.
  24. As said above, even small battles can lead to spread in the fleet. When I fought the Tsushima Strait, even with a fleet of just 13 ships they managed to split into 4-5 diferent spread out groups. Whenever I was busy dealing with one, another one risked being torpedoed. Overall this just became a mess of a battle. Instead of leading this, I just let the AI handle the CLs and DDs groups while I focused about my Battleships. I should be encouraged to watch over them all, but I simply cannot afford to pan from my pre-dread BBs to guide the ligher ships because I need to be wary of torpedo attacks. Its not just managing our ship. I mean, its not a nightmare. Im not bumping my head against the table to handle this. Its manageable. But there are also a lot of anoyances in games that are manegeable but should be fixed anyways. Even the simplest and smalest RTS games often have a tactical map. Just because its small scale doesnt mean it shouldn't have one.
  25. More copypaste hulls, but no new turrets for factions that need them... 😕
×
×
  • Create New...