Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

35 Excellent

About AurumCorvus

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Do you have a big enough shipyard for the minimum displacement of the design? If you don't, it won't show up. If you want to check, try custom battles to find out the minimum displacement.
  2. My two cents on torpedoes being overpowered in 1890s/1900s. I say it's historical and mostly fine (though minor balance tweaks might be necessary to even out and get consistent results, especially with certain people saying overpowered and some saying underpowered), but the battle generator is making a slightly overpowered tool even worse. If we had proper screening elements (namely DDs or CLs), this wouldn't be so much a problem. If, to close on the enemy, you had to go through three or four DDs (also carrying torpedoes) for a single CA/BB, it wouldn't be a worthwhile trade. As it is now
  3. If it is a huge problem for you, you can save edit the location of the ships. Note the name of your ship, then go to the save file (AppData\LocalLow\GameLabs\Ultimate Admirals Dreadnought\save_0.json), open it in a txt editor. Search for the name of the ship and edit the location fields as necessary (I suggest copying things from a ship that is in the right spot to minimize things going wrong.)
  4. Does building a shipyard actually help that much right now? Either you set it for a short time and get a minimal increase, or you go for the full 2 years for the good sized boost. However, once you build it after two years, you have to design a (slightly) larger ship and then build those ships. By that time, you're pretty much in the end game and victory is mostly decided. Sure, extra 2k tons helps, but wouldn't it be better to put the pressure early with more ships? Not to mention that it doesn't really affect CLs and DDs which do a lot of the heavy lifting in terms of convoy raiding/protecti
  5. Two other positive feedbacks, though not campaign related. That tweak about damaged ships no longer slowing down the division? Godsend for my destroyers who now maintain full speed despite their propensity to get damaged. Really loving it. Secondly, the steering components: Extremely meaningful, especially in the 1910s campaign. My first set of destroyers were economical models the eschewed steering for other stuff. They were awesome, with guns and armor galore. My third set of destroyers were very maneuver focused. The ability to turn on a dime (compared to the other destroyers) mea
  6. Not exactly. Yes, it can only take "5k", but BB hulls have a huge resistance modifier, meaning you can only inflict a fraction of the damage on it (usually less than 70% I think, but I usually play in the later years where you can easily boost it to 90% or higher damage reduction.) The TB on the other hand, takes full damage because it has minimal resistance. Hell, even BCs have a good difference from BBs just based on the resistance stat.
  7. If that's true, that's awesome! I briefly skimmed the 1.0 patch notes and didn't see any mention of it, so I wrote out my thoughts. As a "barebones" campaign, this is very well done, and I'm super excited for the game. But honest feedback is still honest feedback, so I wrote it out. Thanks for mentioning it nonetheless!
  8. The campaign is awesome, and the battle generator is awesome. Unfortunately, it also runs into the same problem as RTW, where you get odd combinations of ships. For example, one of my smaller engagements gave me 3 Bs, 1 CA, and a single DD. While it was a good battle and evenly matched (3 CAs and 2 TBs), it also really breaks the immersion. I cannot think of any serious fleet action where multiple battleships were out at sea with so little screening elements (and I assure you, it's not because I'm building no destroyers/short range destroyers. DDs are 'long' range, and I have at leas
  9. Given that I was one of the ones that had to play the Naval Academy (oh well, some bugs are bound to come up. We signed up for early access after all!), one thought came to mind. Currently, the way the Naval Academy is structured, you get "Target Practice" then the two Ironclad missions, followed by the Gun, Speed, and Torpedo Basic missions. Unfortunately, due to the design of the Ironclad missions (while extremely fun), you do learn some bad practices from them. May I recommend pre-fixing/tagging each mission with a "type" of mission as a guide to new players? For example, tag the
  10. "There can only be one"... is not that hard to be extremely honest. The design I used to initially beat it was a bog standard 4x 2 20" ABXY design, no secondaries. Make sure to max out training, S-V rangefinder, Gen II radar, auto loading, tube powder. And it's not like there is a hard limit to work around either. I managed to get a max tonnage ship with a 16" belt/turret, 10" deck/turret top armor alongside a 28kn speed. Also, to make sure that I wasn't mistaken on any part of the mission, I built a 61k BB w/ 2x 4 20" AB design right now and tested the mission again. Same armor inches a
  11. Personnel-based active skills in strategy generally feel immersion breaking to me, especially those that edit stats for a short period. What, did the officer just run around personally injecting adrenaline into every single person on the ship? I'd be really happy with passive effects, but making them actually unique and involving tradeoffs. For example, speed but at high maintenance costs and frequent refits on the campaign level. Or higher RoF at the cost of higher flash fire chance. Basically, focus on passives, but make it more unique than AoS's generic positive %modifiers (though
  12. You can, you need to sync <userdir>\AppData\LocalLow\Game Labs\Ultimate Admiral Dreadnoughts\ I have some redundant files because of the old version, but looking at the timestamps, the following files were recently modified: custom_battle_data.json, mission_data.json, settings.json (important, this is the file that contains your mission completion statuses) All of the files can be opened in notepad, and you can run a quick search if you want to double-check you have the correct file with some design/mission status. The .log files should not matter, but you can sync them over as
  13. I very, very much disagree with this, and advocate for the biggest caliber you can fit for a few reasons: (1) Bigger calibers have much better range, meaning you can completely crowd out smaller ships' armaments (especially noting DDs which are limited to 5in guns, and an 8in gun could potentially kill a DD without ever giving it a chance to fire). This matters in the late-game as well because of it is much better to not let torpedo-carrying ships to get close as they get faster and more deadly (with more range as well). (2) As a part of their better range, they have much better accu
  14. On one hand, I'm impressed that the AI stuck to an all centerline approach and put a ton of decently sized guns with fairly decent firing arcs (let's ignore that one 2 or 3 inch turret). On the other hand... not one (truly) big caliber? I hope the AI got decent armor or speed out of it...
  15. The game's conditions are mostly setup as OR conditions, except for the fact that the survival conditions are instant failures which muddy the waters a bit (it makes the survival conditions an AND condition). So, when you read Hurry Up's objective it is: {Keep alive 50% TR} OR {Sink 75% of enemies AND Keep alive 50% TR} If you look at Near Jutland, the objective is: {Sink 100% of BC AND Keep alive 100% of BC AND Keep alive 30% of DD} OR {Keep alive 100% of BC AND Keep alive 30% DD) Is it perfect? No. Does it mostly work? Yes.
  • Create New...