Littorio

Because it always has and always will

LOL CA, I ditched them 10 years ago after the botched Rome II launch and haven't bought anything from them since. As to this game... I played it since they had their first campaign demo pre-Stream, and exactly what I predicted has happened. Things have become increasingly top-heavy mechanics wise, where every little change inadvertently ripples out to affect myriad other things. The issue is simply that there was a never a realistic chance of them going back and ripping up the early frameworks, so-to-speak, in order to accommodate proper fixes that last. I suspect that a lot of the underlying code is a mess, jury-rigged from layers and layers of activity to flesh out differing areas of the game, growing in scope and complexity as time wore on and new features were added. Of course, I don't know for sure, but this is simply how the game feels. Ultimately, the fact I came back to try the latest version after much time away, and I still have to read about people saying that: enemy task forces are immediately running away before being visually sighted, that the UI, particularly when viewing the fleet, is cluttered with popups, that fleet formations are still unwieldy garbage, that the Strait of Messina is still not passable, etc. - means there is much that has been either ignored by the devs, or more likely, deemed unfixable given their resources and operating responsibilities. I mean, how many times can you "further optimize Battle AI and Auto-Design?" I will say - they added weather and more visual backgrounds. That was badly needed. But too many things about UAD don't make sense, and I don't believe they ever will, simply because too much complexity was baked into the game too fast, and unraveling all that complexity would just break too many systems to be viable...

Oh look @UnleashtheKraken they never fixed this at all 😛

Your rudeness aside, anyone who would prefer to try and play a Paradox title or an RTS like AoE on a console is bonkers in my opinion, and solely looking to make life "easier," consolidating media consumption in a single, likely cheaper, platform. You could have made a economic argument, which I would understand, but you did not. The only well-done RTS on a console was the Halo Wars series because it was specifically made that way from the ground-up with the intention of being for consoles. This was done given the franchise's history of making first-person shooters publicly palatable, and seen as "possible," on consoles. Yes, hold your screams dear sir, I see the irony. The difference however is that taking the UI of something like Dune, and getting to Halo: Combat Evolved, isn't too difficult. There's only so many elements that need to be onscreen for a pleasurable UX. I would not, nor would I ever, wish to play something like CKII or III on a console, and try to navigate the myriad menus with a handful of buttons and a pair of thumbsticks. In conclusion, the only possible argument that makes senses for console-ization of a complex, historically PC-centric title is to bring it to a wider audience that doesn't want to have to spend $$$ for a solid PC. Given the utterly awful state of this game and it's track record of slow progress, terrible communication, repeated claims of fixing still-extant bugs, takeover by a mobile game company, and general malaise, I shudder to to think of any resources being diverted to console-ization.

They have said that this should be "fixed" twenty times by now, going back to over a year ago. How many bugs can there be possibly be in the system that determines where ships go back to port? At the very least in your case, the game should choose something in the North Sea, if the Baltic was bugged. But magical teleportation to the Solomon overnight? Shame on Game Labs for continually resurrecting this ancient issue every other update. I will still refrain from returning. Everything here tells me this is not worth wasting the time to test. It's sad - because at this point the code is likely too top heavy to ever be overhauled to fix the broken, shoestring garbage lurking underneath. I suspect their Stillfront Group mobile game overlords are throttling this project.

How is this looking gents? Still buggy enough to avoid?

Go post in support and wait for Ink.

The idiocy of situations like this is why I stopped playing the game, and I refuse to return until enough good forum users can say with straight faces that such things are in the past. Too many issues are "fixed" only to return immediately upon the next patch...

It's amazing how many times they "fix" the exact same bug...

If weather is accurately addressed and spotting improved (I won't hold my breath), then that would leave the following things to implement/improve: 1. Intelligence - This is obviously key to naval combat. Knowing what ships a potential adversary had, was making, and might make in the future was vitally important to naval policy. Moreso, knowing where these ships were and where they might head was crucial to planning offensive operations during wartime. We can't have a strategic naval game without intelligence, period. 2. Rendered land - We would need at least some coastline to do many types of missions. From attacking port facilities to blockading a strategic strait, at least some land will have to visible. Obviously this should not be too detailed or graphically intensive, but a certain amount is needed. Bonus points if we can construct and operate shore batteries and monitor our mines from fortifications. 3. Sinking animations/damage models - Having ships capsize, partially roll over, break in two, lose the bow, etc. would greatly enhance accuracy and immersion. I don't think much more needs to be said, other than that the current animations are rather limited and "one-size-fits-all."

One step forward, two steps back. Reading the same old comments every month or so about these resurrected bugs from many versions back is an exercise in existential depression. It still does not seem worth an honest play through again...

I doubt they would ever deviate from whatever plan they have cooked up at the moment. I suspect Stillfront has them by the balls working to a different rhythm than Game Labs originally conceived.

This is what I suspect is secretly the real issue as well. They took the mobile developer $$$ but now they're stuck making the game according to mobile timelines, and with the planned depth of this game and what it could/should be, the formula isn't working. Sadly I have little hope for this ever being polished enough for a serious playthrough.

They won't listen I am afraid. I too said this a ways back and it remains my main issue with the game and why I do not play anymore and instead watch and wait. As shown by their current woes, there are simply far too many basic and simple issues with the product. To embark upon scrapping the current ridiculous spotting system and implementing something better would require too many manpower hours to spare, and would undoubtedly (with their quality control or lack thereof), spawn infinitely more bugs that will be nigh impossible to unravel. Unless something changes in their organization, I don't foresee this ever being meaningfully addressed. I had high hopes for this product but it's star is rapidly extinguishing.

Well...it appears sitting out for several months hasn't improved anything at all. In fact, for those of you who know me and remember, it looks like precisely what I predicted would happen, has happened. Namely: - Expanding the map has only exacerbated earlier balance issues (international relations, strength of countries vs. foes) - Rather than improving the game, adding features has only destabilized it further (see mines, subs, fuel, etc) - The AI still retreats in battle almost always despite innumerable "Battle AI improvements"... - Ill-designed formation mechanics still plague the game and make large-scale fleet actions impossible - The UI just became more cluttered, and it is still not optimal and more work than is necessary (see task forces on map) - The increasingly baked-in "spotting" mechanics degrade the credulity of engagement circumstances (though recon interests me and seems to be the only thing possibly beneficial in aggregate that was added) I can surmise all of this just by reading feedback here from posters that I trust. I would gladly reinstall and test this game some more, as I had done for each version starting with the standalone launcher, prior to it being released on Steam. But what would be the point right now? Time is valuable. If it was fun to play, testing would be worth it, but it is not even enjoyable after 30 minutes in it's current state. Moreover, why bother testing when such flaws are already known, mentioned, and repeated 100x over, and yet are still present in the game? I see no need to dogpile. It is the sum of a broken foundation being continually built upon, with bugs simply hamstringing widespread and glaring design flaws that degrade the UI/UX with each passing update, which only adds more and more clutter to an already top-heavy experience. In short, it's capsizing under it's own weight (something still not visually-modeled in game, nor weather, nor....never mind). Basic things that should have been prioritized first are held back in favor of simply greater scope, all I suspect to get more eyeballs on target. I wish things were different, and I hope to see a major improvement in several months time that might make this title worthy of testing again.