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.

Based on the latest hotfix, feedback is thus: - Lag in leaving designer for campaign is reduced, RAM usage is better - AI makes less doomstacks - Citadels are fixed - Tension happens a little more Thus my concerns from earlier today are largely dealt with. However... Out of 3 engagements, each one where I outnumbered the foe, they fled before even seeing my forces, just immediate 180 turns, since contact was never made between the points of the compass using fast TBs and CLs on varying courses, on 10x speed, for a good 20 minutes. I just wanted to see if I ever saw even the slightest bit of them. I am tired of saying since the earliest days of the campaign that this behavior is illogical. The enemy should not flee before it ascertains my forces. Oh wait, we "already" did that on the campaign map, operational level. So why is the engagement even occurring??? Even better, if I "trapped" them with my "superior speed" and forced the fight, how are they evading? All this, I and others have stated countless times. Besides the obvious need for a spotting overhaul, the UI/UX is just horrid. It's depressing trying to build ships and being unable to compare designs side-by-side. It is a pain to switch behind 2 different classes 100x trying to compare stats and weights. It is idiotic to have to build ships to ancient designs only to refit them. Formations are still garbage and collision avoidance makes things worse, because ships do full 180s and then run parallel to each other far, far out of formation and away from the fleet. The stupid "cloudy fog" that in no way models the supposed conditions on the field makes it annoying to try and see your forces and how close they are, and only exists in-game to give cover to their nonsensical "fog of war" which is not real fog as discussed ad infinitum. We need real weather visually modeled. We need a top-down fleet view, or a paper chart or something, anything to get a better look at the positioning of a large fleet. There are many such simple add-ons and fixes that would go a long-way to making this game better immediately. Essentially, the user experience is just not fun right now, either as facilitated by the UI or through many existing game mechanics. Based on the way the devs have been going, and the things that have been given priority, I am doubtful these concerns will be addressed anytime soon. The game is just a time sink as it stands, which would not be a problem if it was at least fun. But it is not even that, and is hobbled by too many nagging design issues, both large and small. I can't play this game anymore as it is, and I refuse to waste more time on it unless changes are made. The more they build on this shaky foundation and tie in ever-increasing numbers of systems, the worse it will be to go back and revamp things. I have uninstalled this game and deleted all cache info. I'm taking a long break, at least 3 months, probably more. I'll check in down the road admirals and see how this awkward beast is faring, if we ever get there. But there are many other players who checked out that you don't see on the forums anymore at all, and I am not alone. Sooner or later there will be a reckoning, and either this game will finally become what it should be, or else will remain mired in mud as a nightmare to manage and play. I wish you all well. Good luck.

I am not sure, but it seems logical. Can you "blockade" a place with open ports lol? No.

So I haven't done a full playthrough yet and will save my full overview for later, but to respond to some of these points: Yes, for whatever reason, leaving the designer on your first turn, turn 0, takes a long time. I can't figure out why, because the AI has already built their ships, and you haven't told the game how many of yours to make yet. What is in the code that makes it hang up taking your designs to the campaign initially? Big point. Conning tower armor has always seemed very limited to me, once again by these stupid, gamey towers. Now it seems worse than ever. Before, I could routinely, even on 1890, get way more deck and/or superstructure armor than the conning tower. But now the conning tower values are even lower. I'm guessing these were tweaked to helped balance the designs and prevent the crazy offsets from the beta? Regardless, the conning tower was supposed to be substantially more-armored that the deck/superstructure, not less (whether most officers actually used them is another issue). The values now available to us are piddling, 1.5-3" depending on cruiser type in 1890, but hull armor can be over 10"+ for the same vessel! Can confirm, Austrians put almost their entire 68-vessel navy in one doomstack. Granted it isn't war yet but it remains to be seen if they beak it up... No, no expansion is needed. US/Japan/Spain/Russia can wait a bit. We need far more polishing and fixing. Perhaps the most important thing that everyone can agree on is a UI/UX patch. The way elements move and work on screen needs some refinement. Having lots of ship refits in the UI is annoying, and it drags down the UX when we are unable to directly make refits. Also, why can't I copy a design and then change some of it's modules, like armor type? Why can I only manipulate the sliders and armor values themselves? There are so many little things like this that would go a long way to making the game better. For that matter, why does the politics tab still list everyone as a democracy lol? Little UI features so players that devs care. In addition, the devs have stated on several issues that reported problems were just from an "incorrect UI not displaying the truth." Fixing the UI will result in less erroneous error reports and help make development smoother and faster, with time not being wasted by bogus complaints. There is much backend code that needs reviewing for us to have a better UI and thus UX, and I don't want to see that dragged down by more rounds of stupid campaign bugs and misfiring events, VP issues, etc...

I don't believe the game is that complicated at the moment. I think it takes into account their entire coast. So you may have superiority in the Irish Sea, but they have lots of vessels in other regions. Sink more Brits and blockade should enact sooner or later.

So essentially you have given up and are just suggesting that anything but the currently used, utterly woeful, and totally inadequate system would be too much for the devs? Well if that is the case I would like to hear them say that and commit to locking in things the way they are. That way, myself and many others can flee this sinking ship (pun intended) and not come back. If the finished product of UA:D intends to keep operational level reconnaissance the way it is on the campaign map (essentially non-existent), and makes us re-spot in battle what we already identified (according to the game itself before you click begin battle), then I and many others are no longer interested and would rather save time and aggravation leaving now. It is quite hard to enjoy a naval game that neglects the most important part of naval warfare - locating your enemy in the first place. The ocean is large place, and even once you find someone, you must identify them! Currently, none of this is enjoyable in UA:D and it is very clearly taking a backseat to other priorities, mainly this disastrous "diplomatic" system that you pushed so vigorously for. Yes, sadly they do. "Better" towers should speed up classification of already identified targets, and enhance the accuracy of fire on said targets, nothing more.

But this doesn't even enhance gameplay at all...It is a continual drag on the player that contributes to infinite rounds of chasing "smoke sighted" (with no bearings mind you, other than the four cardinal directions). It does nothing to make battles more interesting, and inherently contradicts itself, as I have pointed out numerous times, because enemy class and loadout was already identified BEFORE you begin battle! This information is (again, unrealistically I may add) given to you as a literal gift on the campaign layer battle markers. The current setup just does not make any sense, not from a gameplay perspective, not from a historical perspective, and certainly not from a logical perspective. It loses no matter what. You have done nothing to rebut my points but insist everything is fine without backing. Perhaps "...the game is founded in historical principles and replicates them" in SOME areas of play, but certainly NOT in this one. On one hand, you seem to be arguing against historical realism, but now on the other you seem to be saying "no wait it's actually historical, all is well." "Fog of war" is not literal fog, it is uncertainty in combat based on a lack of real-time information! You do not need an artificial fog to replicate this. In fact, besides the fake fog, the game does everything it possibly can to NOT REPLICATE FOG OF WAR. It gives you every possible stat and figure for every enemy once fully-identified in battle (even though that was already given before on the campaign layer marker). Essentially, like your argument, it is a contradictory design that accomplishes neither fun, nor satisfaction. It is a pointless compromise that pleases no one and is illogical. I would rather see a fully arcade game then this random, haphazard blend of principles. At least we then know what we are getting. No one is looking at this system and saying: "Wow I need to plan ahead and 'charge into the fog and take losses which are part of war' in order to win!" They are looking at this and saying: "Wow I can literally see the shells leaving the invisible barrels but because their ship has some magic tower giving them 1600 spotting mana points, and mine only has a magic tower granting me 1500 spotting mana points, they can see and shoot me from slightly longer distance! How ahistorical, gamey, and utterly, rotely annoying!" It's not like this scenario is more challenging. The AI still can't shoot worth a damn. It isn't a significant challenge or makes things more dangerous. It is purely poor design influenced by conflicting philosophies and people like you who urge them to build the campaign "bigger and wider and faster and cooler and neater" all the while neglecting the basic systems of the game that (would) make it enjoyable in the first place!

I just want the Strait of Messina passable....not even a canal...

Others have said as much as well. I don't play many later dates so I don't notice it as much (less launchers), but I believe as of now it is intended. I think Nick said something along the lines of "We are already being lenient with the speed at which you can launch torps, so just slow down on your approach and as you go broadside."

I am not against something like that in theory, but the thing is, based on what you stated, most of that would be taking place on the campaign map, as part of operational-level reconnaissance (in a ideal revamp that is). Really, the only "spotting" that should occur in a battle itself would be if and as individual ships disappear back and forth over the horizon (or in and out of radar range), or else enter a rain squall (or in rare cases duck behind islands or points if land is ever added and we are on the coast). That is frankly what I find most ridiculous about this whole system as it exists. It is not something that should be happening during an engagement. The spotting and at least tentative identification must have already occurred in order for the engagement to even begin in the first place!

Let's handles this point by point shall we? 1. "Having visible ranges....balance...different classes...same instance...own purpose" - Uhhhh no. Are you telling me that the only difference in your battles between a BB and a TB is how far their respective, gamey memetower with it's particular "values" can "spot" the enemy? If so, I don't know what kind of ships you are building. The differences should be patently transparent: vastly different armament, armor, speed, hull durability, crew size, propulsion, etc. Trying to say "Ohh well the #1 distinguishing feature between different vessels is their god-gifted sight range from their super-special towers!" is ridiculous. They will behave differently and have different roles based on all of the aforementioned characteristics. If you keep DDs in a line trying to hit BBs, that's on you. 2. "If all visible...rapid death...destroyers...slugfest...horizon...every battle" - Wrong again, because for some reason you seem to think that a "visually-acquired target" directly translates to "we can accurately hit that target repeatedly at this range." This doesn't bear up to the historical reality that we are suggesting be followed. If what you stated was true, no navy would have ever built anything but BBs, because any other class of ship in battle would be useless, unable to see and thus hit larger ships at range. I fail to see any condition in UAD in which simply being aware of an enemy vessel on the horizon suddenly translates to being able to hit them squarely time and again. There will always be uses for different classes of vessels. Obviously, BBs are meant to fight other BBs. You seem to be of the simplistic belief that fleet actions wouldn't have many more moving pieces. Lighter ships are meant to fight their counterparts, not the larger vessels (usually). DDs kill TBs, CLs kill DDs, and CAs kill CLs. Anything else is just happenstance and particular battlefield positioning/luck (i.e. a timely torpedo run from light vessels on the battleline). The scenario you are describing is just BBs siting back and annihilating everything they see from the moment they see it, which is of course ridiculous both in game as well as in reality. BBs can't even reliably hit what they CAN SEE NOW based on your ridiculous spotting fog. Why would that change and increase greatly given another 10-15km of vision??? 3. "But in UAD even blind-firing enemies challenges the player, you cannot deny that." - I would not say this current system imposes any more challenge, so yes, I will argue that point. Sure, it's ANNOYING to be invisibly shelled by a vessel I can clearly see the shells ORIGINATING from (or even better surrounded in a CL "smoke ring" clearly marking it's position for all to see - defeating your and the games point of this invisibility adding more "challenge"..). Sure, it makes more of a PAIN to fight every battle, particularly a ship fleeing as it shoots invisibly. Sure, it makes the battles LESS tactically-inclined because no one can make any actual fleet moves but must instead flail about in a literal, non-weather created, dev-mandated "fog." Instead of having something like Jutland happen, with escalating situations and runs to the south because we see BCs but don't know BBs are just over the horizon, we have an ever-increasing number of Guadalcanal brawls with a mass of ships engaging point blank on top of each other. 4. "'Ease' the challenge'" - And this one just takes the cake as your most ridiculous statement yet. We, the players who want to do away with this fake, battle-map-centric system of "spotting" that negates WHAT WE WERE ALREADY TOLD on the campaign map, (enemy type, armament, speed, etc) and which you haven't addressed AT ALL in your poor response, are the ones pushing for a harder challenge based on reality. YOU, and those supporting your position, be they devs or players, are the ones pushing for an easier challenge. You just stated it above: "If all were visible then it’ll be a rapid death of destroyers to cruisers, cruisers to battleships and battleships in a slugfest to the horizon, every battle. At some point realism has to be balanced for gameplay." Thus, you feel it would be too hard to compensate for "long-range battleships able to pummel all others" or some such equally nonsensical notion. I already addressed that above, in this doom scenario you describe, the escorts of each fleet would be focused on each other, and the BBs their counterparts. "OMG WHAT IF THERE ARE NO BBs ON THE ENEMY SIDE! WOULDN'T I JUST DOMINATE, OR VICE VERSA IF IT WAS THEM???" So you want every encounter balanced? Who is wanting it easy now? Not every battle featured symmetrical opposition, and indeed most did not. Regardless, as I stated above in passing - your argument is lacking as it completely disregards any notion of campaign-map, operations-level scouting, reconnaissance, and intelligence, which would abrogate most of the issues on the battle-maps anyway. In a manner, the game already hints at this as it gives you enemy classifications and details entering a given fight. IF WE KNOW THIS GOING IN, which means we sighted and classified the enemy already, WHY IN NEPTUNE'S SALTY BEARD do we need to do it all over again in battle!? You want to talk about what is "best for gameplay"? Ok, how about not having players chase smoke sighted for 10 mins until the game lets them exit? How about having players actually have to take agency over their forces when the full enemy fleet is spotted on the horizon, giving ample but dangerously critical time to plan moves and countermoves. How about having the player understand that just because he can see the enemy, does not mean he will hit the enemy with any chance of success, and therefore must move closer to the foe, and thus be in a more dangerous position, in order to hit anything? Your idea of what is best for the game is flawed and is decisively shot down by your own logic, or dare I say, the lack thereof.