Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Lucas_Slavik

Members2
  • Posts

    18
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    : the eternal void

Recent Profile Visitors

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

Lucas_Slavik's Achievements

Landsmen

Landsmen (1/13)

22

Reputation

  1. despite my earlier critics (which is imho still valid) I just want to say thanks to @Nick Thomadis and the devs. UA:D is a great game and the short time we get hotfixes is total exemplary! I think it's important to state this. No matter what, even if I miss lot of things, even if I post criticism here-and-there, this game (and it's devs) is an absolute gem. Thank you. I hope the business is running okay and you still support this great game in the coming time.
  2. so, kind of sobering patch sadly.... Most new hulls are just rescaled, (partly) copy-pasted existing ones (at least graphical). Still not much new. Still feels like every nation has the exact same ships, just in different sice. Some of the Experimental Heavy Cruisers (which are rescaled japanese DDs) still have the ASW on their deck, which are hillarios big (10'' width depth charge?!?). At least, adjust their scale or remove them, before re-use an hull. Was hoping for more. Like when you've released the new US hulls (Texas etc). That was great. This. Nah. 42 are much. But like this, it feels still very shallow.
  3. True. I would like it myself more if they spend their ressources on other stuff... But still want to know what ppl think about, on Steam it feels (for me) that most ppl want a "looping" map no matter what.
  4. sure. but "could", not "will". I have enought trust in the dev team, that they can do it without breaking the game/fix "could" bugs in the future. And beside the "could", only thing that is "sure" is, that the savegames will die.
  5. so, according to the roadmap, "map to have a horizontal “looping”" is not "possible" since it will ruin all the savegames. Lets see what the community think is more important - to keep a save, or have a "looping" map. I personally don't care. I'm totally fine with the map as it is now, and I don't care if I had to start over with the campaign
  6. Hey guys and hey Devs Just some thoughts at the campaign. I know its highly WIP, but it could be so much better with only a little bit of work The AI is just defeated to fast; after like 5 or max 10 years, the enemy nations are all out of ships or out of sailors and can't fight back what ever they try. This is imho caused by a) too many naval battles on one side, but more and most important by too aggressive AI on the other side. e.g. I started with Austira-Hungary and tried to be peacful as much as possible. But since I got extremly relationship hits if germany goes to war (why? We where not even allied!), I ended up in a war very fast. I don't even provoke it, but after like 10 years of the campaign, every nation was literally at war with everyone. This led to the situation which all the AI fleets melted down to non-existance in no-time. So, imho, the main problem of the campaign - before the AI and balancing etc - is that war is just too common and too total. Simple solution imho: Make peace more lasting so that there is at least one AI nation which survives more then 10 years. Make less "world wars" and more "local wars" (just 2 nations fighting at one time; mostly any nation declared war to another while still (losing) in war with another). Maybe add some "naval incidents"; fighting missions in peace time with an very limited scale (1-3 ships or so) to keep the peacetime a little bit more interested. Only let the game start big world war style conflicts with triggered events (or like random every 15 years), so that all time some nations have time to recover. With limiting total war and world war conflict, the campaign can stay fun fore years after campaign start. Currently its fun to play, even in its bare bones, but the AI nations are just annihilated to fast... even if the player want/try to play more passive. Let me know what you think!
  7. iirc, the Devs are based in Ukraina. Is that correct? If yes, do the recent situation in Ukraina somehow influence the developement of the game?
  8. Yeah really. I had no problem before Steam-Launch, now I just don't get it done. I mostly tried it the same as you, but only with a smaller main battery caliber. Guess it can work yes, but it's still very bad designed since a single torp hit (or just bad luck by hiting ther faster BB; eventually they are leaving your max range before you hit them hard enought to slow them down) will let you loose. Interesting is that you wrote that the BC will start circle you one time. Never happend for me so far; they always just run away in a streight line. Maybe I try it with 18inchs, but atm I just have no power left for UA:D-frustration
  9. IQ 100 is always the average intelligence; so it is not possible that half of the pop is below that. UA:D is not about sailing around and firing guns/torps, it's about constructing ships, manoevering and naval tactics. Your complaint is like "HoI4 is so bad, you cant control your tanks directly, you just can move armies around. such a bad game lol stupid 1!1!!!11". Maybe you should try out WoWs instead. There are indeed problems with UA:D, and there is a problem with torps. But not that you can't fire them yourself, but that own ship AI is just so horrible bad at aiming.
  10. Tried that mission again today. This time, with 2 BBs with a cost of 125mil (extra funds). The enemy CAs had each a cost of 250mil - 39 knots, veteran crew, lot of guns, over 30 torps... Plus the 2 BCs. Sorry, slowly I start to hate this game. This is not balanced, or fair, or fun. I guess it is not intended that the player just have to reload the mission twenty time to get an enemy which is beatable? Did they even play there own missions? Why not just simply limit the funds which the AI ship generator can use for its ships? edit: yeah, reloaded the game, now the enemy CA are just at 46mil cost. So the AI clearly just have unlimited funds to build it's ships. Especially since crew EXP don't need any tonnage and just funds, this is totally unbalanced. A ship with veteran crew is much more powerfull as a ships with green crew. AI should be restricted in funds, or the Naval Academy Missions can get totally unbalanced/unfun/unwinable some times, which is just bad designed. Still - after killing the enemy CA, the mission is lost because the AI BCs run away. Oh and no, it's not the AI going for a long range battle. The enemy BCs run away so far, that they can't even shoot their guns on me. So time will just runs out because the enemy will just stay out of range with his 38 knot BCs.
  11. Yep. Just build lot of the heaviest ships you can - power protection will rise very soon. I broke the blockade by just have like 12 heavy (but useless in battle; they need to be cheap) BBs in being.
  12. Playing Academy Mission: Dreadnought vs. modern Crusier. Enemy BCs are always running away with 32-38 knots; to even have a chance to hit them, your BB must have +-36 knots (or the enemy will just leave effective range before he gets any meaningful damage). While you need all weight on engine, it is not possible to construct any kind of usefull BB. This Mission is not only very hard to win due this, but also boring, frustrating and just - sorry to call it like that - shit. Had like 4 rage quits in a row by trying this mission. Do you feel the same here, or I'm just bad? Whats your solution against enemies running away with 38 knots (without possibility to use CA/CL/DD)?
  13. There are so many possibilities. I mean, Tumblehome BB with 1940 - just think about it! This would look so cool xD
  14. Still. I think this (Musashi) is en extreme example. She was at least a state-of-art-super-battleship. Since the last patch, I had situation like this: 1x 18 inch torp vs Heavy Cruiser, 1930. 25 Dmg. +-10x 24 inch torp vs (normal) Battleship, 1930. 800 Dmg. I dont say, every torp have to do 5000 dmg. But at least 100+ would be fair...
×
×
  • Create New...