Spitfire_97

This. Why does it feel like the game is actively preventing me from enjoying it? You designed an awesome super powerful BB design? Nah it's full of flaws You prepared an invasion fleet to take a territory you've had your eye on all game? Nah the government says no You bought the enemy fleet to bear in a battle line engagement? Nah the AI runs away You made a dedicated class of minesweepers to clear passage for your main fleet? Nah they hit a bunch of mines anyway It's like the game makes you believe you can do all these things, until you actually try doing those things and realise that because RNG or because bad game design you can't

Gotta love it. "It's not that bad calm down"

Yes please

Petty spite will not make your game better Nick. Manual rudder is the only way many of us can play. Remove it and we simply won't

Just my two cents here but I really don't wanna have to muck about with training infantry in a game about naval strategy. If you want to add a separate crew pool for land warfare... why not just give the player control of the army? The only thing marines would add to the game is control of invasions, and you don't really need an entire crew training mechanic just to give the player control over invasions because control should never have been taken away in the first place. Adding more detail to amphibious operations kinda runs into the issue that we don't actually get to take part in any such operations. Remember we don't have land modelled anywhere in battle, heck even port raids are in the open ocean. If we had an encounter like "Amphibious Landing" where you had to destroy the harbour defences then keep your troop carrying ships in the harbour zone for a certain time period to offload, that would be cool. But without that you'd just be adding more detail that the player won't ever get to interact or engage with. All the extra crew training and research, to the player would just look like different numbers on the "Land War" page between turns, that's the only difference it would make. And that there is the crux of the issue. The land war has so much of an impact on what the player does, but it all happens off-screen between turns. We don't get to see it, we just get told the outcome in plain text. No matter how much extra detail gets added, if this issue isn't addressed it will never be enjoyable for the player, marines or no

This is the biggest problem with 1.09 and 1.10 imo. You just need to look at the way Rule The Waves 2 handles minefields and land invasions to know this complete dependence on rng is strangling the game. UAD claims to be a strategy sandbox game while playing more and more like a deckbuilder

Is a wraparound map in development or is this it?

So do minesweepers actually sweep mines now or is it still just a dice roll between turns? I mean yes the amount of mine hits was excessive but I believe the bigger issue is RNG taking away the importance of player strategy

I've gone back to playing Rule The Waves 2 again. Ironically the spreadsheet simulator is a more enjoyable experience at this point in time. It's very unlikely the developers of this game will have the freedom to develop their game properly now that they're owned by Stillfront. I believe they're stuck in a cycle of desperately trying to meet impossible deadlines under the threat of being immediately shut down for missing one, hence they don't have the time to fix bugs or implement features properly. Given that this situation is unlikely to change any time soon, I would sincerely doubt this game will ever be worth the asking price

Definitely too sensitive. Historical shipwrights could adjust the position of fuel bunkers and auxiliary equipment within the ship to help balance things separate from the main machinery spaces. Not to mention weight offset could be adjusted quite drastically while at sea just by moving fuel around the ship. "Trimmer" was a job title aboard a coal fired ship, men would move coal from bunker to bunker to keep the correct longitudinal balance. On an oil fired ship this could be accomplished with simple crossfeed pumps. Here in the game the placement of the funnel(s) is what places all of the machinery, we essentially get none of the balancing options an actual ship builder would have. This combined with how limited funnel placement options are on many hulls means it's no surprise at all that balancing is almost impossible. We don't even get a choice of fuel bunker location, a multi thousand ton piece of equipment that could comprise a double digit percentage of the ships total weight Quite frankly, using the funnel location to place the engines absolute nonsense. The funnel is literally just a hole in the ship to let the flue gasses out, take a look at some of the wacky early carrier funnel designs and you'll see the funnel can go pretty much wherever so long as it is within trunking distance of the boilers. It would be like designing a car by putting the exhaust on first, then deciding you need to put the engine in the back because that's where you put the exhaust. Some easy changes that could be made is to have a "dead zone" between 0% and 10% weight offset that has no negative effects, to stand in for auxiliary machinery placement and fuel trimming. Also having the option to place the machinery spaces within the ship manually, perhaps with an engine efficiency and weight penalty for having the funnel too far from the boilers

No, they changed the game from sandbox to railroad over the course of a year and slowly smothered any chance at excellence this game had under a tidal wave of half finished features. Then the story ended

Yet another feature that's essentially a copy paste of RTW2 implemented without the slightest thought as to actually making the game better. Just "RTW2 has it, so we have to have it too" even if they don't have the time / understanding to ensure that the feature adds to the game instead of detracting from it. If unproven technology is what causes flaws then as that technology ages the likelihood of flaws should go down. For example in 1905 when Dreadnought was ordered steam turbines were the absolute cutting edge, and so you would expect flaws to exist before the technology matures and kinks are worked out. By 1940 the technology is so well understood that you wouldn't expect any flaws in a direct drive turbine setup. However the current implementation in UAD is that turbines have zero extra chance of flaws from the moment the technology is invented, but "Geared Turbines II" has an additional risk even beyond the late 1940s when they were already starting to make advances in diesel and gas turbine technology. This makes absolutely zero sense. Even if you try to excuse it by sacrificing realism for gameplay it makes no sense because it doesn't add any strategy to the game at all, it just makes the cool stuff less appealing and less useful. I want you to consider how much more engaging the feature would be if chance of flaws was proportional to your R&D progress in that respective area. So if a tech is important for your designs you can prioritise it to quickly remove flaws from that specific technology, ie you want to use turbo-electric propulsion so you specialise engine research. This way you can decide which technologies your nation specialises in, you can gain an advantage over other nations but you have to pick and choose wisely to not be left behind in other research areas. It adds an extra layer of strategy as well as a great deal of replayability as the same nation can be played many different ways and you'll get a noticeably different experience each time. Such a simple change could make the game so much more intricate, it really feels like the feature was added just so the devs can say they added the feature. I don't understand how you could look at the current implementation and say "yeah that'll do". It has no basis in reality or in good game design. It feels like an afterthought, something that was added to check off a checklist rather than add depth to the game

Another purpose I can think of is clearing the path for a larger taskforce / battle group. Attempting a 1.09 campaign, I built an entire class of DDs as dedicated ASW minesweepers (cheap, long range, max ASW and minesweeping at the expense of ASuW capability and speed). Imagine my shock when I sent out a task force of DDs ahead of a battlegroup to, y'know, sweep for mines... only for every single ship in the task force to be hit by mines in a single turn... bruh.

Wow, so umm... about those mines. Do the devs of this game understand what makes a game fun? Because the implementation of mines, aside from being completely opaque, buggy, unrealistic and overpowered, is just plain old fashioned boring. So you find out at the start of your turn that an arbitrary number of ships have taken an arbitrary percentage of damage? That's it? Absolutely no information on location of minefields, minesweeping progress, how to avoid them next turn etc, just a single notification that says "you have to turn your task force back now lololol". I genuinely couldn't think of a worse way to add a feature to the game. Zero player engagement, zero strategy, zero fun. Man this game is a nightmare of the devs own making. Quantity of features over any semblance of quality. There needs to be a radical shift in the way this game if being developed, otherwise the end product is always going to be a cluster

Considering how much effort it would take to add an option to the campaign start screen to do this, I find it really disappointing that they instead chose to take away player freedom. Just add another option beneath Difficulty, that adds a multiplier to starting funds. Literally nothing else has to change. Simple, easy fix, huge quality of life improvement for the players, but nope, instead they chose to encrypt the save files 🤦‍♂️