Littorio

If you poke around a bit all of this is covered and will come. Things right now are barebones. Fleets, task forces, positioning, etc. will all be made. They have said all of this from the beginning.

The real problem seems to be crew resiliency. I have seen vessels with multiple magazine detonations loose 20-30 crew overall. In reality half or more would be dead from various causes: splinters, shrapnel, burns, concussive force, secondary explosions, flooding from the resulting holes, etc.

This was on Steam so I guess we won't get anything for awhile: "Changelog will be changed inside the build. Since it is a very active procedure, we cannot also maintain the forums so frequently."

....enter it in Steam...

Agreed. Often times i think I am safe on a side because of their list, but somehow their guns still magically fire.

So I found this ugly CL. A single 4" shielded gun on the bow, with two 6" turrets aft, and that's it! Nothing else, no secondaries, no torpedoes, nothing at all. What a bizarre design. Perfect for stern chases 😆

Can we have patch notes for it? I like to read, even if it's a beta.

Well for a game that is totally reliant on said hulls for the expansion and future success of the program, they should develop mod tools for those of us crazy enough/knowledgeable enough to do it. I'm sure there are several people on here who would be happy to take it on in their spare time. I have seen a few people doing naval schematic models. Even if people can only use those self-built models themselves, it would go a long way to taking the pressure off the devs. Less time building hulls means more time actually fleshing out features.

Because...devs can only make so many hulls? Trying to build the whole game + make hulls is a lot. I still say they should make mod tools for all of us to make our own hulls.

Supposedly they already worked on flooding a little from the first iteration of the campaign. So far I haven't seen a huge difference but I'll keep playing and see...

Thoughts on latest playthrough: visuals look better in the damage model department. Seriously, I notice buckling and structural deformation now that I never saw before. No idea when that got added. Masts are bent too if damaged. Falling off would be a great next step if they get totally destroyed. The AI seems to do much better defending convoys. Warships actively get between you and the TPs. It could always be better but it's a step in the right direction. However, going back to the damage models and visuals, we need some work on magazine detonations + flash fires. I got a hit on their BB for ~ 2500dmg. The forward 11" magazine went up like a Christmas tree with a column of fire that looked like Hood's. Yet, somehow the ship is one piece. It's still afloat, and even crazier, the forward 11" turret isn't a twisted pile of useless garbage. That thing should be toast, and the hull should be deformed, if not cracked in two outright. Somehow my ship looks a lot worse off despite just normal fires. Meanwhile their whole main magazine goes up and they still have a working turret, bonkers...

2645 dmg from a detonation in the forward main magazine. The column of fire was tremendous. I thought for sure the ship would crack in two. Instead it just kind of wallows and floods a little with some paltry scorch marks. In reality it would look like a reverse Hood with the bow blown off. It took me another 30 mins to putt around and sink this guy:

That BB is disgusting. Why have a large main-caliber turret on the rear, only to have a much smaller gun on a superfiring barbette immediately behind it, and an even smaller barbetter gun behind that? The AI seems to love these 5-7 turret CLs. Usually they have awful fields of fire and are severely underarmored as well. Some don't have any torpedoes in order to support all these guns.

All very good questions that I look forward to the devs answering.

This brings me to something else. Not to start the whole spotting thing again after I laid it to rest for now, but given the restraints of the current system, it would at least be helpful to say which ship spotted smoke. Is it NE of my BB in the center of the flotilla? Is it NE of my TB screen to port, or the ones to starboard? Some basic indicators of which vessels are involved would go a long way right now.

Please no, but this will never happen, thank God. People need to stop pushing for games clearly designed for the PC to be on consoles. Something like this requires a mouse and keyboard. The dev team is limited and can't be distracted worrying about such things.

I think we've all said it pretty clearly by now and they should be aware of our positions. Personally I can be content knowing that weather and the accompanying visuals are being worked on. Nick said that backgrounds are currently randomly generated, with no connection to the supposed effects we receive in battle. Once this is finished, hopefully we can return to spotting debates.

I didn't see, apologies. I was just trying to include the people I remembered. I look forward to waiting for the weather updates.

I have seen this too with Italian ships in the custom designer. Floating components that is...If I see them again I will screenshot. I have seen this as well. Those guns DO fire as on can see the smoke from them and be hit by projectiles coming out of the hull itself lol. @Nick Thomadisare there any plans on fixing guns inside TPs? (Unless they are secret Easter Eggs for Q-ships against submarines lol) Nick has stated in the suggestion post that spotting will be readdressed once weather and all the time visuals are done: "Regarding the spotting mechanics, we need to wait for the new environment graphics for different weathers. The current weather modifiers which affect spotting distances, were perceptually working without the issues you are having. For example, when the weather had heavy fog on a stormy sea (in our internal testing with multiple weather types) it worked fine. Ships were not appearing so suddenly as now in clear weather situations. We need some time to perfect this mechanic according to weather differentiation." Then we can continue to endlessly debate this. But in the meantime, @Skeksis@RedParadize@akd@DougToss@Danelin Aruna and anyone else I may have forgotten, I suggest we suspend our discussions on spotting until said time as the above-mentioned has occurred.

Thank you for letting us know. We appreciate it.

Really? What could be causing such an inconsistency? Just as an example, here is a picture I have posted elsewhere. It says it's a stormy day with strong gale winds and very rough waves. It doesn't look like that at all and I believe I have the graphics on maximum.

Hello, transplant from the Dreadnought forum here. What will this game be like? Reading about it reminds me of the Akella/1C games about pirates. They were sort of open-ended RPGs like Mount & Blade, but set in the 17th century Caribbean. You could sail around and trade, be a pirate, fight for a nation, etc.

Ok, I have one word for you, punctuation.

Well if that's what you believe than that's your prerogative. Personally I don't very much care about the graphics. They look good enough for what they are supposed to be right now, and we have far bigger fish to fry as far as development and their limited manpower. But you do you.

Firstly, thanks for doing this thread @Nick Thomadis! It means a lot and is good communication with your loyal players, which is always needed and appreciated. There are a number of things that I could say, but I'll restrict myself to only mentioning the most important, so as to be most clear. 1. Proper Weather and Day/Night - This is the most important aspect right now to truly get into the feel of the game. Invisible penalties from storms you can't see? That's ridiculous. If it is night, give us a dark background with a moon. I don't believe that at least basic backgrounds would be very difficult to put in. Moreso, it will help the Steam community and your ratings, because people will not think the game is too cheap and simple looking. I am not asking for high-fidelity 4K backgrounds, just basic ones that accurately reflect the battlefield you claim we are fighting on. 2. Spotting on the Campaign Map - This would save you lots of problems as far as "fleeing enemies" and chasing "smoke sighted" messages. Simply put, don't inform the player precisely what we have found, or at least in most cases. I know you want to say "Battleship Duel," but honestly, how can our battleship know the enemy is a battleship too, if once we start the battle, we can't see anyone, and then have to find the enemy and identify them? Didn't we identify them on the campaign layer already? If not, how did we know we would have a BB duel??? This would alleviate a lot of player frustration in terms of finding/identifying the enemy, but also allow us or them to try and flee on the campaign layer, preventing pointless stern chases in battles that start the moment you begin. You in fact already have mechanics to do this - the withdraw and delay features, so they can be upgraded and expanded, taking into account the respective vessels' speeds and ranges. 3. Spotting on the Tactical/Battle Map - Going further, I argue that towers should not have much of a "spotting value," but instead a much larger and more important "identifying value." It's true, higher towers can see the enemy farther away, because of basic optics and how the horizon works. So obviously a TB Mk.1 tower is going to be harder to find enemies with compared to that of an large BB with very tall towers. But there should not be a massive technological difference between earlier and later towers as far as spotting goes (and in fact some later towers were shorter than earlier ones). Instead, the technological difference should be seen in quickly and precisely identifying the foe. Having a much more important identifying value assigned to towers means all that tech in the later models, better rangefinders, bigger and heavier optics, etc, has a proper effect. It adds to the balance of the game. You might build a BB with very tall 40m masts, but they must be very thin and light to attain such height and keep stable. Therefore, though you can see the enemy from the longest distance possible given atmospheric conditions and the physics of the horizon, you might still be at a disadvantage. The enemy may have a shorter tower, and see you later, but they have better equipment and more of it, because their design is wider and heavier. This means they can identify your ship model, class, number, name, etc. much sooner than you, and thus generate accurate firing solutions, and correct said solutions faster. Basically, make the spotting value strictly tied to tower height, regardless of tech tier. Instead of that being the primary purpose of towers, add an identifying value that scales with tower technological advancement to simulate better optics and rangefinders. Lastly, make this identifying value a key component of generating accurate fire on the enemy target. I very much agree with these statements.