Stormnet
-
Posts
236 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
15
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by Stormnet
-
-
38 minutes ago, Commander Reed said:
The lack of posts here just goes to show how terrible the AI is at designing ships in general, although the thread IS relatively new but we'll see.
I myself have never seen anything worth noting. The AI is pretty terrible in regards to design.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. -
On 9/5/2021 at 4:23 PM, Mooncatt said:
Look on youtube, no one plays them, they are just too hard. the enemy ships arent the issue at all, neither is anyones build. the fact is there just isnt enough ammo. no matter what i build (and yes im a vet at this game but due to windows format and new pc a few times) it doesnt matter what you build, even taking extra ammo option....you always run out and the enemy ships are no where close to being sunk. ive tried the lot! doesnt matter how i build the ship it makes no difference, ammo is a big issue
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. -
YYYYYYYYYYYYYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
1
-
-
On 9/12/2021 at 8:45 AM, Skeksis said:
I've come to realize that earlier hulls are very limited in choices. Even if you could have the equivalent in hull numbers it wouldn't matter, they're small sized with low free deck space for options. These older historical ships have bulky superstructures with little or no room for options and mostly all would have fixed placeholders. And early tech is just as limiting.
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.
On 9/12/2021 at 8:45 AM, Skeksis said:From dreadnoughts onwards the options for customization grows, it builds variety, it builds immersion, it builds the value of 'Designer Tool'.
And that's the key right there, designing ships, everything passes through here, it's where the focus is and therefore it's got to have the premium features and the best way to do that is with maximizing options, i.e. with free deck space. Including supers with there supersized deck space. Like it's the very nature of 'Designer Tool' that force out modern hulls.
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.On 9/12/2021 at 8:45 AM, Skeksis said:How many post were there of "give us more placement options", well Dev's answered them and they answered some of it with modern hulls and there free deck space (including freeing up dreadnought placeholders too). And there are no more posts of such either.
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.
On 9/12/2021 at 8:45 AM, Skeksis said:This too has seemed like another reason(s) for late era ships to thrive. Post dreadnought hulls was inevitable. Maybe not a "mistake"!
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.-
4
-
-
Now that devs are slowly tacking this issue, this stuff should come in handy.
Quad turrets in 1914? Sign me up!
-
2
-
-
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.
-
5
-
-
Core finnaly coming?! HOOORAY.
Finnaly I dont have to spend 70% of battles rebuilding my ships.
And thank ya @Cptbarney
for the ping-
6
-
-
FINALLY! Actual info about the campaign!
Imma spread the word.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, AdmiralGunzo said:
Where are the engines on that ship? where do the crew sleep?
I wish there was some role for the arranging the internals of the ships. You wouldn't actually have to model the interiors, but you'd have to some how place them within the hull.
Waves of Steel (a Warship Gunner inspired game with submarines that transform into battleships) does this and barbettes better than UAD...
Yikes.
-
4
-
-
2 hours ago, minimalism said:
Currently we can only tell the guns to target a ship and they fire automatically without us aiming manually, is this going to be implemented? It can be useful when we wan't to penetrate a ship's certain compartment etc.
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.
-
8
-
-
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.
-
7
-
-
12 hours ago, Evil4Zerggin said:
- Auxiliary Engine: Engines are often one of the heaviest and most expensive components on a ship, especially given that most of the Naval Academy missions may end up with you trying to run down enemy ships, for which high speed is a requirement. Auxiliary Engine increases both weight and cost by large percentages. The benefits would have to be absolutely massive to be worth it, but they're just not. Maybe if the campaign has a role for slow convoy escorts with barely any engines to begin with. IMO the cost would have been better as an increase in HP requirement per ton displacement, or failing that, a hull weight modifier.
- Shaft: Same as Auxiliary Engine. This one isn't quite as bad since it mostly increases cost rather than weight, but it's still a hard sell.
- Barbette: Some facts about flash fires and detonations. First, you can't get flash fire chance down to zero. You can get detonation chance down to zero but it requires big sacrifices. However, you can never get flash fired or detonated if the shell's penetration is less than the thickness of your turret armor. So you have two choices: design your entire ship around reducing flash fire chance, picking suboptimal shells, ballooning your hull and turret weight modifier (which affects turret armor weight too!)... and still possibly get flash fired anyways. Or you could just slap on 25"+ turret armor and forget about all that. Ironically, it's CLs and DDs that might actually consider barbettes since they can't just armor their way to immunity.
- Reinforced Bulkheads: Having disposed of flash fires, the remaining benefits aren't enough to justify the hull weight increase.
- Anti-Flood: The benefits are really narrow. But the weight cost is also fairly small so I wouldn't consider it a huge loss to take this either.
- Citadel: Again, having disposed of flash fires, the remaining gains from stronger armor tend to get eaten by the hull weight increase. A case could be made for maximum Resistance stacking, but this only really works with a few specific late-game BB hulls.
- Shell Weight: I put this here because Super-Heavy Shells are just so much better than everything else. The range increase means greater accuracy at all ranges due to how the accuracy formula works; it's almost enough to carry the choice all by itself. Add in the penetration and damage bonuses and it's a foregone conclusion. Arguably this was the best choice historically, but from a game perspective it seems too overwhelmingly the correct choice for anything that's not a pure torpedo ship. Of course, Super-Heavy Shells prevents getting flash fire and detonation chance close to zero, further cementing turret armor as the way to avoid flash fires and detonations.
- Turret Traverse: These increase engine or hull weight by a percentage (even if all you have is a single 2" gun) for a pretty fringe benefit, which is hard to justify unless e.g. the battle starts at less than 5 km distance. I'd be more receptive to using these if they only affected the turret weight, and the bonus was bigger relative to the weight increase.
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.
-
On 7/11/2021 at 10:04 AM, 1MajorKoenig said:
Howdy Folks - anyone knows when the next train arrives here? Haven’t heard a whole lot here recently?
Any Chance for a brief update?
Cheers
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.
-
3
-
-
21 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:
In the upcoming build the respective component will be separated to Shell Charge / Propellant, so Cordite and other propellants/charges will get their realistic impact.
Awesome!
Thought I hope design saving also comes...
-
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.
-
1
-
-
On 7/11/2021 at 9:09 PM, AdmiralObvious said:
This if my first post on this forum, but I think I've had the game for a few months now, since Alpha 11 came out.
Anyways, the point of this thread is that the AI is too good at avoiding torpedoes, while the ships under player control set to be under the AI are effectively useless against torpedo armed craft.
After testing why this is the case for a short while, I've found out why.
The enemy AI appears to have a "preemptive avoidance" mechanic built into the AI for the ships under it's command. This is why once one ship detects a torpedo every single ship in the squadron moves to avoid the torpedo.
Player controlled AI ships simply don't have this AI. Instead what happens is that once a torpedo approaches the ship, the player AI switches the ship over into the collision avoidance AI, which is suboptimal at best for dodging a relatively fast moving torpedo at best, or at worst will actually cause the ship to turn into several torpedoes instead of just eating one.
It would be fantastic if the player AI ships got to have the same AI as the enemy does, but this may not ne viable. If that isn't possible, it would be nice to nerf the AI effectiveness of torpedo avoidance.
I'll have more threads coming up soon(ish) on other weird AI quirks and behavior too.
Thanks for your work at researching this.
-
On 7/2/2021 at 5:19 AM, ThatZenoGuy said:
Anyone else think that maybe the devs added too many nations from the start?
I'd prefer the big nations, USA, Britain, Japan, Germany with a full, well fleshed out (refit options, different beam ratios, all the superstructures with proper names, etc), than ALLLLLLLL the nations including fictional ones like China, but with less fleshed out options.
Every hull specifically designed for, say, Austria-Hungary is a hull 'taken away' from the USA, or Japan or such.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.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, HistoricalAccuracyMan said:
While I agree and would love to see those ships added as well, that problem isn't just with WW1 Era Russian BCs...it's in just about every nation available. Especially if you look at the US Navy, Royal Navy, Japanese Navy and German Navy hulls...most of their battlecruisers and like half of all their heavy cruiser designs are basically just resized battleship hulls
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.
-
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.
-
5
-
-
Im not gonna go into a big story and yada yada.
Long story short, casemate metal covers look bad.
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.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.
-
7
-
-
5 hours ago, Skeksis said:
I do. No one will have an ability to keep multiple ships in formation for the very first time they play UAD, therefore it must be something that players learns, a skill.
In large battles, if you don't keep track of your ships they will spread out to 20-30km plus, just as Evil4Zerggin added, even in small to medium sized battles your ships can get out-off position very quickly, I agree with everybody on that, but that where it ends.
The game and its players should have skills to learn, i.e. to manage ships in 3D and git gudda at it.
Clicking any division or ship icon will send the camera on its way, no need for an extra 2D map to do the same thing.
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.
-
5
-
-
14 hours ago, neph said:
In general, AI seems far, far, too secondary-happy. These are dreadnoughts, yeah? Pick two calibers & stick with it (plus a few AA calibers for flair, I guess)
The AI is a secondary UAD calliber collector.
-
On 6/25/2021 at 8:19 PM, Skeksis said:
So commanding 20 ships at once, the probable max or thereabouts, is within the learnable skill and manageable ability's criteria, i.e. with these numbers, a 2D battle instance map isn't necessary, IMO.
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.
-
3
-
-
More copypaste hulls, but no new turrets for factions that need them... 😕
-
1
-
Clown Car Thread
in General Discussions
Posted
The AI still hasnt mastered barbettes.