ZorinW

I just don't understand why the devs did not ask us what to add next. I guarantee you that 90% would have been perfectly happy with the world map and them fixing all the old bugs that are STILL present. Piling on more and more broken features will kill the game sooner than later. Mark my words.

I can't even fathom that they thought that not having a wraparound map would be an option.

Overweight and underweight mechanic is completely incomprehensible.. How can a shipyard build a ship and accidentally forget to fit 15% of a BB? Or add 15% of weight? Like in 1890 my BB is "missing" 2.250 tons of whatever. That's like worth 10 of my torpedo boats 🤣 Map is shockingly poor executed. Have the devs never heard of OpenGIS? These hand drawn edges are very poor.

But in the end the enemey ships we are fighting are the single most important part of this game. As it stands right now, there is absolutely no challenge in playing the campaign. I never lost one and you are even going to win when effectively binding your hands behind your back because the AI is stil so bad at coming up with ships that would pose an actual threat to players.

I just had an idea for how to gradually improve the AI's ability to build ships. The devs should implement a feedback form in the post battle screen. So you can select each enemy design and rate it from -3 to +3 on a set number of parameters. Say number of guns (mains/secondary), armor, offsets, speed, smoke (number of funnels), number of torpedos, etc. Over time the AI will then "know" what makes a good design. What do you guys/gals think?

Exactly, it's the whole point of desigining our own ships to have the ultimate freedom. So please give us the UNLOCK option in the campaign.

a) WoW was also in early access when I joined and as shown above already looked better then UAD does today b) I didn't have to pay a single cent for WoW unlike UAD c) UAD should have allocated their funds towards hiring more 3D artists, because better visuals would draw a bigger crowd to keep funds coming in

I just came across some original World of Warships models from 2015 (see below) and that again reminded me how badly this game needs a graphics update. I mean the whole selling point is the ability to build your own ships and they are an absolute visual letdown and would have been 7 years ago. For starters, the scaling of the hull models in game falls on the spectrum of either being completely wrong or utterly inconsistent (just look at the lifeboats and anchors). Also the method of making the bridges, for example, bigger when their tech upgrades. Why? Screws again with the whole proportions. The textures are also rudimentary at best. This doesn't, btw, have anything to do with the need to keep it simple so we can modify the hulls as all we can actually change are the hull's dimensions in a very limited way. Regarding displacement, this only means adding length to the middle of the ship, which is always done in adding whole sections and is not linear, so you just insert a pre-made section. Then we come to draught and beam, where draught is already implemented wrong and which scales the 3D model wrong as a result. In game, the draught simply increases or decreases the entire hull height, but this time in a linear way, when it should do it, same should apply to beam, in increments of say 50 cm. Those increments could also be properly modeled and textured to not screw up the proportions. Just compare these two USS Smith (DD-17) models. The original ship and the WoW model, is 293 ft 10 in (89.56 m) long and 26 ft 5 in (8.05 m) wide (skipping draught as that is nonsense in UAD). The closest you can get in UAD is 91.4 m long and 9.4 m wide. I mean, where do we even start?!

The speed is given in the sheet. They are always the minimum speed so for the battleship 16 kn and for the TB 21 kn.

Fianl update with the Battle Cruiser data added.

Next update with the data for the Heavy Cruisers.

Next update with the data for the Light Cruisers.

Updated the sheet with the Torpedo Boat and Destroyer data. Finding: Building and maintaining a torpedo boat is FOUR times more expensive per ton than a battleship! That's wrong on so many levels and highlights the very problematic way of how the Devs are handling the limits on the AI right now. Also, in 1925, the Dreadnought III and Modern Destroyer Leader have almost the same hull stats. That's one tough destroyer!

Well spotted, thanks. I removed the bug marking.

I have made another spreadsheet to investigate the building and maintenance costs. In particular I have surveyed all the German battleship hulls in game right now. These figures come from the custom battle shipbuilder. Minimum armor quality, fuel type and engine type are noted and the increase in the ship stats (stability, hull form, etc) are a result from the passive tech tree boni. All hulls were set to minimum for each stat (displacement, range, speed, bulkheads, quarters and armor), except beam and draught wich remained at 0%. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iJZj2aZpY_qh4XGDGsV5C-EiJBdFjbKKnSDm1QBCiZc/edit?usp=sharing Finacially speaking, never go beyond the smallest available hull Battleship I, Small Dreadnought and Dreadnought III should get you through a whole campaign quite nicely if you want the most ship for your money Between 1900 and 1940 the maintenance cost per ton and the overall cost per ton quadruple! Remind me again, why do I spend billions on tech to make my ships more efficient, when that doesn't translate to cost savings?? Something buggy happens in 1925 as all ships lose floatability points SOLVED @Nick Thomadis NOTICE: Updated with TB and DD data | Updated with Light Cruiser data | Updated with HeavyCruiser data | Updated with Battle Crusier data

Washington Naval Treaty - Battleship Preussen Standard displacement: 34.530 t Speed: 25 knts Range: 13.770 km Armament: 3x3 375 mm /45 | 6x2 225 mm/45 | 2x4 88 mm/34

As others have said, just keep your wars going to destroy every single ship of the enemy. Within 10 years, in my current Italian, campaign I have gotten all provinces in the Med and only need Helgoland and Ireland, but the Brits are just not building enough to give me sufficient canon fodder for the VP points I need to claim Ireland...

I feel we are at a point again where a roadmap thread that would be constantly updated by the devs would be ideal. For me at least, the game and its features have run their course and there is absolutely nothing worth testing anymore. We reported a great amount of bugs and now have nowhere to go in terms of spending time with this game.

Also the counter flooding mechanic that "anti flood 1" should give you doesn't work, at all

Again, what's with the attitude towards people who payed YOU to have a job in the first place and who are spending their time testing the product you deliver? By this point there are still many bugs presents in the game and the campaign is basically stale so people will try to make the most of what is there and if that leads to finding more bugs or possible exploits YOU should be GRATEFUL and not ridicule them!

Has anyone tried to start a 1940 campaign? Waiting for an hour now and it's still on October 1938... EDIT: IT TOOK THE GAME 2 HOURS TO START A 1940 CAMPAIGN!!

Another engine weight/boilers bug ALL Italian Heavy and Light Cruisers end up with almost zero weight and cost for their engines, when the beam or draught is reduced to the minimum. Same bug with the Japanese Light Cruiser I, Scout Cruiser, Modern Heavy Cruiser IV, Modern Heavy Cruiser III, Modern Heavy Cruiser II and Heavy Scout Cruiser. French: Heavy Cruiser I and II

The 3D is the same for starters, which is what the casual player will notice at once, and the only value of real difference is resistance, which is a third higher for the CA. Though that is a completely arbitrary value chosen by the developers to force an artificial differentiation between the classes, which only exists to help the AI design ships. Players are perfectly capable to start from scratch and design different ships, which in turn will become part of what historically would have been a class of ship (CA, CL, BB, etc.). As it stands now and going back to my example, you have two ships of which the 3D ship element (the hull) is identical, apart from the CL being 12.8m shorter, yet due to arbitrary values differ vastly in cost, engine weight and sizes and "resistance".

Just a simple comparison of German hulls to highlight just how much is still basically wrong with the shipbuilding component. Just pay close attention to the ship sizes, component costs and weights for engines and boilers. All stats have been set to minimum except for the same speed of 26 knots. Modern Battleship I (Hullform: 150.7) Modern Battlecruiser (Hullform: 131) Modern Heavy Cruiser I (Hullform: 132.3) Modern Light Cruiser (Hullform: 150.7) Modern Destroyer (Hullform: 110) In terms of dimensions the Modern Heavy Cruiser I and Modern Light Cruiser are the same ship with the CL only missing a 12.8m section of hull, yet its hull (see the stats) weighs 319 tons less!? Also it only needs 11 tons worth of engines and boilers (36.000 hp) compared to the CAs 90 tons (41.000 hp)?! On top it can go 1000 km further with almost 100 tons less fuel?! The maintenance for the CA costs more than twice as much as the CL's for a same sized ship with only an additional 49 crewmembers?! And while the CLs 11 tons of engines and boilers can produce 36.000 hp the Modern Destroyers 9 tons can only generate ~6.500 hp?! The DDs engines are also more than twice as expensive!? And why do 400 tons of CL hull cost $471.000 and 319 tons of DD hull $1.038.000 !? Which makes it in turn more expensive in overall terms than the CL... Also the maintenance for the DD is twice as expensive as the CL for a smaller ship with a third of the crew?! Also, why is the MINIMUM draught of the Modern Destroyer 5.9 meters?! For a rough comparison the weights for Bismarck: https://www.kbismarck.com/bsweights.html

I know, but did you not check the stats? The lighter, narrower CL requires 1000t of engine/boilers and the heavier and wider CA only 500t of engine/boilers. What kind of black magic hydro dynamic you suggest is going on with that CA hull? Historically the Condottieri-class (CL) reached 37 knots with the same 95.000 hp double turbines that accelerated the Zara class (CA) to only 32 knots.