The PC Collector
-
Posts
422 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
17
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by The PC Collector
-
-
3 hours ago, Suribachi said:
I still feel that this works best as a Settings toggle. Turning on historical flags would allow those who want the more historical flags to see them. Turning off historical flags would allow alternate flags to be used for those who are uncomfortable with such flags in the game. Setting can default to off so only players that deliberately want it on will see such flags, like the Nazi flag or Soviet Flag.
3 hours ago, o Barão said:With all due respect, but at least give us the option to choose historical flags. It is silly to ignore historical facts just because some players have their feelings hurt because some stupid flag.
Anyway
Merry Christmas to all GLs team.
Well, I have revised the information provided by other users, and while it is true that the usage of Nazi symbols are no longer completely forbidden in Germany, their usage still require to be given explicit approval by German game rating board in a case by case basis. So it could still be a potential problem.
Besides, in the current status the game is in, I don't think the game can afford losing any support due to something as stupid as a flag. Given the connotations that symbology has, people has all the right to become offended or feel uncomfortable by its usage. As an spanish, for example, I would feel very uncomfortable playing in late ages if the Francoist flag had been included.
So, all in all, I think removing the Nazi flag and any other which could have similar connotations is a good moving. Having them included by default in the game is more trouble than it is worth, and whoever want them can always mod them in. -
Welp, the drunken ship bug make the game unplayable, so the cycle repeats, sadly...
-
7
-
1
-
-
Glad to see that the incorrect Spanish flag has finally been adressed. Speaking of flags, you're aware you can get into legal trouble in Germany for marketing a product with the Nazi Germany flag on it, don't you?
@Nick Thomadis I strongly advise removing Nazi Germany flag before the update goes live. Since I'm surprised that this game is apparently coming out from the hole it was 1.0.9, I wouldn't want it to sink definitely by a lawsuit coming from Germany.-
3
-
-
5 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:
It looks rather awkward. Graphics display resolution 1920x1200.
Game is not really prepard to work in anything else but 16:9. I faced similar issues when playing away from home in an older computer with a 4:3 screen.
-
2
-
-
Well... and suddenly, AI refuses once more to engage no matter what....
I give up. At this point I've simply lost any faith this game will ever be functional, let alone playable.
-
Okay, I'm having an issue with mines: I have defensive minefields researched, I have minelayers (I designed and built a cheap minelaying CL class for that purpose) I have them in the port I want to mine, I've been at war for nearly two years now and not a single mine has been laid.
-
AI still don't know how to properly refit. I keep seeing BBs with their speeds lowered to 15 kn and things like that upon refit.
-
3
-
-
I've said ot dozens of times, but I'll say it once more... THE TENSION SYSTEM SIMPLY DOESN'T WORK ANYMORE.
5 years into the campaign, I have nothing else than constant wars with Russia and the US... all the rest of countries have so high relationships that I have no chance of ever going to war with them. The game is pretty much US and Russia (each one on their own) against the world.
-
4
-
-
Okay... I've noticed that, since now not all the ships go back to repair after a battle (a very welcomed change) the AI spawning ships heavily damaged, which reallistically should have been sent to repair, has been happening almost every battle. Maybe AI repair priority should be tweaked?
-
Okay... I've noticed that, when ships detach from a taskforce for repairs, instead to go back for repairs to the port they came back from, or to the closest port, they go repair wherever around the world. Playing as Spain, I had a ship going to repair to a random small port near Japan, other in south africa and a couple to the caribbean, after a battle in the mediterranean.
This is a behaviour which should be corrected ASAP, as it makes the already annoying fleet management (which badly needs enhancements, but that's another topic) even more of a chore. Yes, now they don't go back to the mainland instead of the port assigned, now it is even worse.-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, Cryadis said:
but i guess there are reason that this is not that easy to implement currently.
No reason other than the devs not wanting us to, because I have screenshots which prove that the AI is allowed to build refits.
-
So, Auto Avoid works again? I have it disabled by default since 1.03
-
5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
When you select to NOT discard the design, it means the design is going to be saved
So there is an expected functionality here.
No, is not an expected functionality, you're completely missing the point. What he is saying is that the "Not Discard" function can be exploited to save and use desings that would be otherwise unusable, thus allowing you for example to simply ignore weight or shipyaerd size restrictions, as you can simply build a ship, then make it massively overweight by using that trick. Which should not happen at all.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Pappystein said:
Actually Small Dreadnought is not meant for that. Rather your Semi dreadnought hulls are the Battleship hulls that allow for Battleship caliber wing turrets.
You're missing my point. Which hull in the game is intended for semi dreadnoughts is irrelevant. The thing is that, as they existed, I see no reason why the AI should not build them.
-
24 minutes ago, Pappystein said:
After unlocking Dreadnought BB, AI should no longer make non-dreadnought ships (ships with many different calibers of guns basically) 1 Primary caliber for the main and two secondary calibers ONLY. A latter tech point could add a 3rd caliber for AA weapons.
I agree on pretty much everything you said but this. Semi dreadnoughts (ships which had most of the traits of dreadnoughts in terms of hull and speed but still had multicalibre weaponry) were rare, but did exist. The "Small Dreadnought" hull is meant primarily for this kind of ship. So, as the ships did exist, I see no reason for any AI which has said hull not building them.
28 minutes ago, Pappystein said:Mines: RC1
- Damage factor seems to be consistent with historical mine damage. Great job
- Minesweaping seems to not have much/any effect
- Minefields are often well beyond the size and shape they are portrayed to be. This leads to heavy mine damage when a task force shouldn't intersect a mine field at all. this is a serious issue.
I'm still skeptical about mines at all. For all what I've read, they serve no other purpose than being annoying. And a feature which has the only purpose of being annoying, should be made optional or not to be included at all. -
4 hours ago, PainKiller said:
You always talk about a lot of feature should be optional / turned off.....
Well, yes. While I'm not saying this might be the case, enforcing the playerbase to deal with annoying feature is a quite effective way to kill a game. So, as I care for this game becoming succesfull, I think that any non essential feature which could turn to be annoying for a large portion of the playerbase should be made optional.
-
18 minutes ago, Fangoriously said:
The totality of my pacific fleet destroyed by mines that are not there wile crossing the edge of the map back to the base in Alaska, all wile under escort of 6 destroyers. These ships were nowhere near land and at the very edge of the map break, VERY CAREFULLY positioned so that they would not plot some suicide course to skirt japan on a return trip to that Alaska port.
I've now lost 6 BBs, 6 BC, and 10 DD to mines, 2 BCs were my bad, the rest where 100% bullshit losses from mines in the middle of oceans. Not a single one of my ships has escaped damage from mines while nowhere near an enemy port, under destroyer escort or not. I've managed to start and maintain war with every power but Spain, and I've lost half my fleet for no reason between turns. Ive pulled all my forces back to the mainland and Im still loosing ships to mines that are not there.
I can't speak for myself, since none of my campaigns have lasted enough to see mines in action for one reason or another, but seeing how apparently most of the playerbase finds them an annoyance at best, I think that making them optional once the testing phase ends would be a VERY wise move.
-
1
-
-
Well, as of update 7, AI seems to no longer be constsntly running away, and guns seems to not get stuck anymore. So good job and stay safe!
Just curious, I thought that the UA:D team was in Greece for some reason? -
It is nice to finally be able to build BBs with Spain at the start of the campaing. However, at this point this is not a complaint, but legit curiosity: How many times I'm going to have to report the flag in the bow and stern of Spanish ships being incorrect? Currently, it displays the constitutional 1982 flag, instead of the 1878 one, which is correctly displayed on the mast. I'm aware it is a petty issue, but it is one that shouldn't take more time to solve than it took making captured ships using the current owner's flag instead of the original one.
On this topic, I also have another legit curiosity: Why did you even bother including the constitutional flag considering that the game ends like 30 years before that flag even existed?
Also, how many times I'm going to have to report that the use religious names (Like Santa María or San Salvador) was deprecated in the spanish navy like in the 1840s, and thus no 1890 ship should have them?-
6
-
-
27 minutes ago, Plazma said:
As I said, this is a balance issue not a bug issue for me. The AI sometimes don't want risk anything. With this same situation 3 BB vs 5 CL I will also run away with 3 BB, because of torpedo, lack of spotting ability, too risky(low profit compared to be able lose 1 BB in stupid way) and also even if I win, the 3 BB will be repair for 1-2 month and that is huge stop, I could be blockaded by the enemy in the next turn. And I will run away not only because I was afraid, but to keep the distance as long as possible. The BB charging into CL is a bad idea in my opinion.
Why risky the fight 1 vs 1 when we can run away and try 2 vs 1. (especially when they have numerical advantage and disadvantage in quality). I think the AI behave very different depends on something. Example in my campaign Russia run away, but Chines navy engage most of the time, only in situation 1 vs 2 they run away.
If you are faster you decide when the fight should have a place, but in transport convoy they should engage more often in general.
Don't forget that this is a game, and as a game, it's purpose is being entertaining. Without absolutely any acritude, if you legit find fun having an endless chase on every single engagement, I'm honestly happy for you. But for most of the playerbase, that is an annoyance at best, and judging by the reaction to my posts, I'd say that is majoritarily considered an very serious issue which completely cripples the gameplay to the point of making the game not worth playing. And as such, it should be adressed ASAP.
-
4
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Plazma said:
I build faster ships. This is nice pressure on the player to make ships fast and because of that less armored with less amount of guns
For me this is not a bug, but a bad balance or feature.
Sorry, but this is a terrible, non valid argument. AI should try to engage unless the disadvantage is significative. Saying that the AI running like chickens no mather of the situation (I've had a group of 3 BBs running away from a measly 5 CL squad) is not bad because there is a workaround, in this case using faster ships and rushing RDF, is as bad as saying that power outages aren't bad because you can always use candles.
-
3
-
-
2 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:
Beta Update 6 Hotfix (23/10/2022)
- Fixed turret rotation issue which could cause guns to slightly merge with the superstructure and stuck. Please check if this issue is fully resolved (It was quite random and not consistent). Players should not confuse this bug with the Angled! warning which is an expected functionality.
- Fixed various issues with campaign ship building which could cause auto-design invalid designs, errors and turn delays.
- Reverted temporarily a Technology functionality related with the submarine experiments (they became inactive when all the included technologies were discovered), because they could corrupt the technology tree and permanently destroy the campaign save.
- Fixed bug which caused inconsistent refit time (The time shown in constructor was applied differently when the ship actually became refitted and was much smaller).
- Tension mechanics adjustments so that tension is caused when big fleets enter the water of friendly nations.
- Fixes for formations, addressing some old issues which appeared when players disabled the Auto-Evade of ships.
- Improved Campaign Fleet merging radius, fixing pathfinding issues and resulting in less "Doomstack" battles, as the fleets will not merge at so large distances.Please Restart Steam to receive the new update.
I failed to see "Fixed AI refusing to engage" on the list, and came to the game fearing for the worst. Effectively, AI still refuses to engage no matter what. No offence, but any other fix you apply is essentially worthless unless this critical gamecrippling issue is adressed.
-
2
-
-
51 minutes ago, DableUTeeF said:
I just spend a literal 2 hours pressing "Next Turn" and wait for "Building Ships" without any war happen for 3 years.
We really need something better than the tension mechanic to start the war. Or just let the player manually set it honestly. After all this is not a pay to win game that the devs need to make some aspect annoying to the player so that they pay the real money. I'm sure making the game more enjoyable will make more money to the company than making it slightly realistic at the cost of being frustrating to the player.
The whole reason anybody is playing this game is to build ships and shoot something. Why should anybody care about making the economic and politic aspect as realistic as possible?
Especially when the battle system has something as questionable as "near flagship" and "target fast speed" accuracy multipliers?
Couldn't agree more. That and the "But you're not the ruler, only the Admiral" bullshit to not allow us to have control over things whe should in a grand strategy game will ultimately be this game's downfall if not adressed.
-
2
-
-
Game is essentially unplayable. Even if you take the chore of letting the AI control your ships for a 20+ min real time chase, and eventually manage to engage, it will be an eternal stern tanking chase you'll eventually will have to drop from when most of your guns become stuck.
We can barely get any war because the tension system, which was barely functional before, simply doesn't work anymore.
If we manage to get a war, we can barely get any battle because the AI refuses to engage no matter what.
If we manage to get a battle, we can't get any result of it because of the gun aiming bug rendering our ships unusable.
I'm going to risk getting banned, but this need to be said clearly:
WE CAN'T TEST ANYTHING IF NOT EVEN THE MOST BASIC ASPECTS OF THE GAME WORK-
13
-
1
-
So there is an expected functionality here.
>>>Beta v1.1 Feedback<<< [RC 6]
in General Discussions
Posted
Never said the Nazi flag disturbs me. Only that might cause issues. And if I'm an "snowflake" for not wanting to see the emblem of a 40 year dictatorship which devastated my country... then I have nothing else to discuss with you. As I can clearly see that your only position is insult anyone who disagrees with you.