[Secondaries even worth having right now?]

On 11/17/2021 at 10:15 AM, T_the_ferret said:

Only secondaries i saw as worth having was 127mm and over, and even then i prefered having more main guns in secondary positions. The big problem is small guns simply don't have enough accuracy and range, and when they do hit don't do enough damage, so you can't really use them to intercept smaller ships either.

One of the things that also ties into that is many components having + accuracy and - range which basically just means - accuracy, as base accuracy is way too low and thus cannot compensate for range and the accuracy bonus it itself provides

So it just promotes building ships that have high caliber secondaries or medium caliber primaries if you want to be multipurpose, put all the + range components you can think of on it, then snipe enemies, as low caliber primaries also have way too low of an accuracy to be useful.

Indeed, I find anything 4 inch and below to be a useless secondary weapon and simply a waste of space. But the effectiveness of secondary batteries are so bad I usually have a few if not almost no secondary weapons on any of my ships to save weight and lower chance of ammo detonations.

[Anti-clown car: post excellent designs from the AI here]

13 hours ago, neph said:

 

Lovely Alsace-esque super 15" BB

That ship looks really undergunned for its size, better at least have impossibly thick armor to match or be really fast.

[Core Patch 1.0 News *The upcoming changelog*]

Here is my theory on what happened to the original campaign.

I bet that before covid, they had a few guys who knew how the campaign functioned and how to manipulate it. Covid came and either they quit or got laid off, so now the only people who knew how the campaign worked no longer work there so they were stuck in limbo and had to eventually scrap it since no one knew how it even worked.

[Core Patch 1.0 News *The upcoming changelog*]

On 11/14/2021 at 10:45 AM, Zuikaku said:

Hey, @Nick Thomadis but why did you choose to do Germany vs. Britain campaign for start? Seems that you somewhat overstretched yourself by doing this. Wouldn't be much more easier if you did Italy vs. Austro-Hungary campaign limited to just Adriatic without the need to do the whole world map? 

And hope you won't forgot torpedo boats. I mean the late ones like Elcos, MAS or Schnellboats.

YES! Even if we can barely modify the things, it would be wonderful to be able to build some of the later PT boats. Would be interesting to see swarms of these things that ships can barely hit.

But it does seem I'm a little bit late, wow so we are all toxic and aggressive huh? Sheesh.
This can all be fixed with bi-weekly updates... I'm sure they think because of the climate here they've deemed the forums too toxic to communicate with so we get nothing from them. Worst possible choice for a development team to make, I've never seen communication for a game go down this bad so extremely fast.

[>>>2021 Development plans<<<]

And then be ready for the 2024 release

[>>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<]

This pretty much sums up the current state between devs and community. Perhaps in the mean-time we find something to not argue about?

Its more fun seeing the jokes than seeing ya'll rip each other to pieces needlessly over silly things to try to measure each others hotdogs on ship knowledge, disgrace!

How about a thread for stuff you want added and why, no arguing, no bs.

[>>>2021 Development plans<<<]

Saying "You get to demand nothing. You deserve nothing. In terms of usefulness, you are nothing. " isnt all that fair to the customer and community.

Customers who purchased early access make and can break this game if the dev's continue to refuse to communicate with the community, potential buyers and influencers/YouTuber's for this game. I've seen plenty of people completely drop hope for the game and lose potential buyers while the original fan base continues declining. The people who stay continue to get irritated and vent that frustration toward other people who are also annoyed causing stupid fights between fans creating a toxic community.

So are you saying people who purchased the game are useless? Are you saying people who find bugs with the game that the dev's fail to find are useless? Are you saying people who give valid complaints and suggestions and show what could be are useless? Are you saying because we forked over our money to this project means we deserve a product that fails to deliver because of dev's trying to much too fast with their limited resources?

The current crisis in the community can be easily and swiftly solved by the dev's, every time a content update is dropped a portion of us calm down and continue to give praise all because they said something or did something. Bi-weekly or monthly blogs can go a long way, even live streams from they're YouTube channel to show off what they are doing and answer community questions goes an extremely long way.

Another game that has pretty terrible feedback from dev's but does interact somewhat is the Space Engineers developers. They hardly release content and when they do its behind pay walls. But they at least do streams, hold events, show hints and screenshots, answer questions on streams and sometimes drop new upcoming content trailers. Although they are notorious for the semi-recent streak of pay wall content and relying on modders for new ideas they at least to some level try to keep the community satisfied till the next relevant thing which is something that is needed here.

Remarks as stated at the beginning will not help anyone especially the stuff killjoy is saying.

[>>>2021 Development plans<<<]

Plans change in game development but this wasn't something I entirely expected to happen in the course of a year. Too much too fast its pretty unrealistic for a small sized team with a few part timers, and from the track record they have who believed they would release so much in a year?

But on the core patch 0.5 dev post, someone posted a link to steam of a dev who recently responded which confirmed that the rest of the patch is under way. Although skeptical I really do hope we get the remaining half core patch by the end of the year. This should at the very least keep the player base satisfied for the time being.

But one thought I am having about the dev's is simply that they know they aren't providing what they promised, and don't respond to us because they know that we are all frustrated and will get ripped to shreads so they keep communication at a minimum.... If this is true then they've taken the worse possible course of action.

Although its also possible the only real feedback they listen to is people who purchased the game and use the report bug function, and if they do browse they only respond or react to a select few posts that are relevant to game function instead of criticism.

[My thoughts on Core Update 0.5]

2 hours ago, brothermunro said:

Interesting points, just my from my own experience:

Ship Builder - I like the tightening up of the designer. You really do have to make a decision between the balance of firepower, protection, and speed. The earlier versions allowed you to make pretty crazy ships which had lots of everything. Adding difficult choices and trade offs I think makes the game more fun, especially long term.

Reload Speed - I’ll let those more qualified make historical comparisons but I genuinely don’t find reload times to be excessively long, they feel pretty appropriate to the era and I rarely feel the need to use autoloaders.

Fleet Formations - the formations are better than they used to be. The ‘anti avoidance’ system I wish I could just turn off. Ships sometimes get stuck or wander off doing the strangest thing. Any major changes to your fleet composition tend to resemble a cloud of angry bees more than a polished naval unit. I’d love to see a pre battle deployment option where you can set your ships up. As well the UI & behaviour of the unit cards is still pretty wonky, it’s easy to mess up divisions by accidentally merging them for instance.

Visuals - An after action report would be a godsend! I think the game looks pretty good though. Doubly so when you consider the size of the team. Graphical polish is something that can be done later as far as I’m concerned. Oh except the brown UI elements and typefaces that came in CP0.5 - not a fan.

AI Goofs - the AI loves to leave transports it is defending to their fate. Some of the AI designs are pretty out there as well (though that has a certain charm).

Dev Feedback - I think the devs wanted to make ship design more difficult - so your complaint (as you put it) made it more likely for them to put it in. The devs are pretty… quiet. Whilst I’d love to hear more from them if it’s a choice between that or them getting some more stuff done I’ll choose the stuff. 

Indeed all fair points. Love your channel btw
The designer before did indeed allow for some pretty insane designs that I felt were a bit much, and some ships mostly cruisers still feel kinda out there with what I can do to them. But when it comes to general balancing, I feel cruisers ultimately get the best out of tonnage limits and restrictions while destroyers and battleships get screwed sometimes.

So reload speed, did some testing and the fastest I can get a 1940 16 inch triple super heavy's to fire is just over 38 seconds, but this requires auto loaders and a 100 veteran crew to occur. Not really entirely possible to get 5 second reload time on a 8 inch for that Des Moine's spam.

But the AI has made some even stranger ship designs because of this new update. Recently tested out my ships against the new Italian ships, the AI created a 75k ton Battlecruiser armed with 6 quad 14 inch auto-loaders firing standard shells. Safe to say this ship was a spam boat with dozens of smaller secondary guns spread out everywhere, I'm honestly amazed the ship didn't explode.

[My thoughts on Core Update 0.5]

How should I put this...
Firstly I'm quite impressed with some of the new stuff, crew/crew losses, the more in-depth depiction of ship range is nice but I still feel boxed in since I cant select a more specific range, secondary weapons seem to hit more often then before, being able to pick powder charges and projectile explosive type. The issue is that's literally it. Every other change I'm quite disappointing with.

SHIP BUILDER
When it comes to ship design, I feel more restricted to what I can put on my ship. Just about all ship designs I had before that I felt were limited are now completely impossible to make now. I usually determine this through how much armor I can no longer put on the ship with the same components and its quite troubling, even freed up quite a bit of tonnage by changing the main guns but it seems to ultimately not make much of a difference.
This has always been my primary issue with Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts, but now it seems the devs have gone in the wrong direction to solve this major issue.

CREW
The only thing that I'm confused about crew is when crew are "lost" in combat. Does this mean casualties or fatalities? I'm quite confused on this. I need to know how much are dead or are just injured.

RELOAD SPEED
What is with the reload speed of guns? They shoot so incredibly slow in the later parts of the game compared to realistic numbers! Over 50 seconds for a 16 inch gun with semi-auto? Pretty wack if you ask me, I understand the tech is somewhat generic and has the same values across the board but even then I still feel that the higher the caliber a gun is, the further away accuracy or semi-accuracy of reload times become.

FLEET FORMATIONS
Fleet formations are still pretty bad with no signs of improvement, auto-evade to prevent your vessels from ramming ally ships is still somewhat unreliable when it comes to fast vessels.
Auto-evade causes turning to be impossible for no apparent reason, this usually happens with fast cruisers and destroyers.
We need a screen that allows us to pick specific ship formations or create our own ship formations from either a before battle screen and or during battle in the UI.

VISUALS
The game still has bland and washed out colors, the skybox still looks pretty terrible and it seems the "New Horizons" mod gives the game better visuals.
The UI on the "Win" and "Lose" after battle screen looks pretty terrible, we need an after action report of how many ships got sunk, ship damage, crew killed or injured, shells fired and projected refit and repair costs.
Ships across the board still bounce around way too much in water almost like toys. Ships that take flooding damage to one side of the ship sometimes don't sink in that direction but instead has one of several generic sinking animations which need to be added upon.

AI Goofs
Recently did a battle with 2 Ally Battlecruiser's vs 2 CA, 6 CL and 8 DD's protecting 25 transports. There was multiple times where the enemy fleet ended up hitting their own ships with torpedoes, this caused several enemy ships to be damaged plus a light cruiser and destroyer to be sunk! Guess the AI doesn't seem to care if any ally ships are in the way huh?

DEV FEEDBACK
From what I can see, dev choices for game changes seem to be highly selective. Seems the only stuff that get added are stuff the devs think work or things that people who purchased the game who use the report bug function in order to give feedback. Now this is fine and all, but me and a number of people disagreed with the 10% belt armor weight increase which further limited ship building. This is semi-typical of them, going in the wrong direction of realism/sandbox game balancing.

[>>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<]

30 minutes ago, Commander Reed said:

Ping me whenever the 1.0 Core Patch comes out. Thanks, everybody have a good month/few months. 

With how the game updates are going, might be next year when we see core patch one but lets hope its gonna be much sooner.

[Core Patch 1: "Arriving"]

On 8/16/2021 at 6:18 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

• Belt Armor weight has been increased by about 10% (it could become rather light in the late technology era)

 

Seriously? This is probably the worst idea the devs could have possible come up with so far. Its already difficult trying to replicate ship designs that can easily end up being 10k tons or more over the real life counterpart so I don't know what you devs are thinking but y'all need to drop the 10% added weight to belt armor.

[>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<]

12 hours ago, DougToss said:

Now I'm alarmed. I had thought maybe now that they had a Steam page, they'd have given up on this forum and its small user base, and that was why things were silent here. That's not great news.

Yeah its quite unfortunate, the devs just about never talk and when they do they "attempt" to reassure people they haven't given up despite the lack of communication overall. Due to this they now no longer answer questions about the game when people are having problems with xolsa or are trying to redownload the game after getting a new computer among other things.

This its causing the dwindling fanbase on the steam forum to not only give up on the game development but argue about non-sense which at this point has turned into a pissing match between some people on there... What makes this worse is that for days if not a week or so at a time no one will post anything or say anything on there, its completely dead. Even tried telling one of the users on there it was dead and was told I was wrong... Bruh

Since then I ditched the steam forums to come here instead, since the community here seems to be more stable.

[>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<]

16 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Did you ever notice the flurry of comms with every update? No Sir, communication wasn’t a problem with every update.

I think he's referring to the fact that the devs fail to tell the player/fan base anything about whats going on with the game. This is causing people to completely give up and argue about stupid and unrelated things, I've seen it happen on the steam forum for this game.

[>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<]

21 hours ago, ColonelHenry said:

I was hoping we could design enemy ships. It has been more than a year now since we requested custom battle to be expanded. The AI ship designs are atrocious and sometimes downright impossible irl. Let's not touch on the fact that when I want a fair fight, I want a fair fight. I don't want the AI to build a bazillion dollar ship to counter my 8 million dollar cruiser. When I want to build a ship that can be produced in numbers but with some quality, I don't want 1 of them to fight a ship of the same class that has YAMATO-COPY stamped on the side. Or vice versa, so many times I wanted to test a decent battleship build and the AI built a shitty HMS Captain copy that would sink if a breeze went by.

Or the AI builds unreasonably overgunned ships with outright horrible and or near non-existent armor for the ship class which somehow almost never explode while also having GPS guided projectiles levels of accuracy while the player gets significantly less hits with superior levels of range finding equipment.

[Which historical ship that you want is still missing from the game?]

12 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Na.  The St. Louis class hull shape is applicable for it and the Pennsylvania armored cruisers.

USS Milwaukee, a St. Louis-class cruiser.

U

USS Pennsylvania, lead ship of her class:

You'd need a new design for the Tennessee classes though given their greatly improved gun placement and armor schemes.

I guess this would also fall under the ship being a placeholder for similar hull forms of the era.

[Which historical ship that you want is still missing from the game?]

Suggestions for USN

Fletcher Class Type Hull Form (This will cover not only the Fletcher class but the Gearing's and Sumner's as well)

Nevada Class Type Hull Form (This will cover the US Standard Battleship hull for that period of time since they all almost look identical)

Wyoming or New York Class Hull Forms to replace the repeat South Carolina Class hull.

North Hampton Class Type Hull Form (This will cover the US Heavy cruisers during the late 20's - 30's since they look similar to the Pensacola's and New Orleans Classes)

Unique ship classes like the Cleveland, Atlanta, St. Louis and Omaha class cruisers will have to be one offs.

Baltimore Class Type Hull Form (This will cover late 1930's US Heavy Cruiser hull shapes)

Alaska Class (Slight alterations to the Baltimore hull would make this hull shape work)

Chester Class Type Hull Form (This will not only cover the Chester Class but ships with a similar hull shapes from other nations)

New Superstructures for Modern US Battleships that replicate the South Dakota Superstructure as a lighter and cheaper alternative, the new superstructure from the last update is just a cheap alteration to the Iowa Superstructure already in place. This superstructure would be perfect for Modern Battleship 1

New Superstructure for modern and 1920's US Battlecruisers such as the Lexingons and Alaska class ships

[>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<]

27 minutes ago, DougToss said:

I've been meaning to ask, how did that turn out? One half of the Cold Waters team is working with MicroProse (!!!) on a Cold War title, and I understand the other half worked on War on the Sea. I've been meaning to try it but haven't gotten around to it yet. How did you find it?

I saw a trailer for the game a while ago before people were able to get their hands on it. Never played it before but I've seen a few lets plays of it. As things stand in the market, this game is the direct competitor for UA:D although from what I've seen the game hasn't changed all too much since I simply haven't seen enough content for the game to make a good determination.

UA:D has variety on its side due to the ship designer but War on the Sea has beaten UA:D on game mechanics since it has submarine/anti-sub warfare, carriers and an internal ship repair mechanic plus a campaign which is something UA:D still doesn't have.

[>>>Alpha-12 Feedback (v86 3/6/2021)<<<]

If this was truly the case I would not be surprised but disappointed... would love to actually design the submarines and use them like ships in the battle space. Although this would require entirely new game mechanics which the devs are for sure to take ages to release, what ever they come up with will be alright I guess but this leaves games like War on the Sea in a superior position for game mechanics.

[Community Ship Designs]

USS UNITED STATES

Construction Instructions:

Tech Year 1940, Super Battleship Hull

Modules: 109k Tons, 26 Knots, Very Long Range, Maximum Bulkheads, Oil 3, Diesel 2, Aux 4, Shaft 3, Krupp 4, Barbette 4, Anti Torp 4, Triple Hull, Reinforced Bulkhead 1, Anti-Flood 3, Citadel 5/All or Nothing, Super Heavy Shells, Increased Ammo, High TNT, Adv Hydraulic, Auto Loading, Rng-C 5, Sonar 3, No Radio, Gen 2 Radar.

Superstructure: Modern Tower 2, The US rear Superstructure from the latest update and the largest funnel you can place.

Armor Scheme: Belt 18", Deck 10.5", Conning Tower 22", Turret Top 10", Belt Extended 8", Deck Extended 6", Turret 18", Secondaries 4".

Armament: 5x3 18" Primary Guns, 6x2 6" Secondary Guns

Cost: 251 Million Dollars

Usage: To engage multiple battlecruisers and battleships with its numerous large caliber guns, designed for long range with its moderate speed being its biggest weakness with its weak secondary battery although this ship will also never sail out alone due to its massive cost and vulnerability to smaller ships.

Inspiration: Used the Tillman Designs as a base for this vessel, its quite fun to use.