Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Stormsword

Members2
  • Posts

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Stormsword

  1. It's no worries - mistakes happen. I'll go back to badgering the devs for proper shared design support in the campaign
  2. I have done this to make all my 1925 designs 1926 designs, but when I looked at the shared design repository in-game all that had happened is that the designs had duplicated in 1925, with no designs in 1926 - hence the question, since I'm not sure whether it'll actually work. Just to clarify - I'm just renaming the files instead of changing the file contents, right? And if I'm actually fiddling with the files, what software should I use to do that? And thanks for the help so far
  3. I think that, ultimately, the only real remaining problem game design-wise is that auto-design still turns out lemons. The balance of the mechanics works fairly well, and I've come to really enjoy the process of designing ships, but the payoff of building something well is seriously undercut by the fact that the AI's designs look like Lovecraftian horrors and generally aren't fun to play against. This game's strongest suit is its looks and the ability to get a really good visual of what designs in the period looked and felt like. As such, as my one major request, we need pure Shared Designs to work in campaigns, and we need the option to easily import and use community Shared Designs - the community is fairly dedicated in that regard already, and I don't think it should be too difficult to implement the current custom battle forced shared designs into the campaign rather than the potluck you usually see with design uptake. Anyway, still enjoy the game regardless - but that's really the major barrier for me to really enjoying the campaign, and probably the only really unfinished aspect of the game.
  4. Thanks for Currently trying this out - thanks for the response btw. So far I've copied the designs and have renamed a few, but in the shared designs tab they still appear to be 1925 designs, so I just have double designs for each. Is this what you also saw when you did this, or am I doing something wrong? Actually wait I've talked myself into changing my method of doing this anyway - but regardless, question stands
  5. I've made it a project of mine recently to try create a full roster of shared designs for the AI to draw from in order to minimise or eliminate AI-generated designs until they're a bit less Frankenstein-ish than they are currently - it's been something that's taken me out of the immersion campaigns might otherwise offer. I put quite a bit of effort in to that end - I have a set of at least 1 design in each category for every nation (barring battlecruisers occasionally) for 1925, 1930, 1935, and 1940, though I don't have very many designs dotted in between. However, when I actually started a 1930 campaign, every AI design was autogenerated, and despite quite a bit of testing I've been unable to make the AI draw on my shared designs for the campaign start. Is this a regular issue, or am I just going to have to accept our AI overlords ruling over every start design? And, if not, what steps would I need to take in order to ensure the AI uses my designs?
  6. I'm have a consistent issue in custom battles which involves the skybox seemingly spinning anticlockwise while everything else stays in place. It isn't a fast motion - it's only particularly visible on 10x and 30x speed, though if you look on 5x speed it's noticeable, if not quite as annoying as at faster speeds. Has anyone else noticed this issue with their game, and, if it's relatively common, are the devs aware that it's an issue? I wouldn't imagine it'd be a hard fix, but just thought it'd be worth bringing to attention.
  7. Thanks so much - you're a lifesaver. Hopefully this one also helps out people who've been wondering this
  8. I've seen a thread in which folders with a large amount of usable shared designs are posted, and would like to add them to my own game - while I'm in the process of adding a couple of designs of my own to my shared designs, being able to import from others would be very helpful in getting some variety in the shared designs-only playthrough I plan on doing. As far as I'm aware there's no Steam Workshop support for this yet, and I haven't a clue how to go about adding them otherwise as I'm very slightly tech-illiterate. Help a starving history student out?
  9. UA:D is a game that's being developed by a small team, and doing graphics takes a lot of time and resources to get right. One must remember that this is still in beta testing - they're focusing on getting the basic gameplay loop right before they move on to the aesthetics of the thing in full.
  10. G3 and N3 were both essentially battleships - the battlecruiser designation was only applied to G3 because it was the faster and lighter-armed of the pair. If you look at the specifics of G3's protection scheme and armament, it's considerably better-armed and protected than contemporary battleship designs - the basis of comparison would really be 30s and 40s battleships, rather than contemporary battlecruisers like the Amagis and Lexingtons. N3 trades speed down to 23 knots for better armour and 3x3 18" guns, on a roughly similar hull.
  11. So far, I'm enjoying the game a lot - despite the inevitable beta-testing jank, I do feel that it has a huge amount of potential, and the gameplay can be addictive as anything for my hyperfixating self. I do, however, have a couple of suggestions. I'll rank them in order from most pressing to least pressing. Post-1920 Light cruiser and destroyer towers I love the ship design for this game so far. Different nations have distinct style of construction that inform gameplay significantly, and generate unique aesthetics across the fleet. It's one of the best part of the game, in my opinion. Ignore this comment when it comes to light cruisers and destroyers. Barring a handful of nations, none of which are yet implemented in the campaign, every damn light cruiser gets the same set of towers. It's more than an aesthetic difference - the shape, size, and attachment points of a ship's towers are really important for defining what you can feasibly fit onto it. When you have the same sets of towers, you end up making the same light cruisers, spread across every nation. Destroyers run into much the same problem, though it's admittedly a little better because of differences in hull shapes. This, currently, is probably the biggest issue for gameplay that I experience regularly - light cruisers are probably the most interesting variable part of the OOB, and they'd be a lot more fun both in the campaign and in custom battles with more variability at the fingertips of the player. AI designs are still ridiculous A large part of the enjoyment this game offers is through immersion, and it's admirable how well it can pull that off when things go right. However, there is nothing that can crash that immersion quite as efficiently as scrolling over the horizon and seeing the Frankenstein's monsters the AI pulls out of the hat. Performance-wise, they're pretty variable - some AI ships can be pretty lethal, while others, like an Austria-Hungarian BC armed with 9.1" guns I recently ran into, are about as dangerous as a wet piece of cardboard. Taken as overall, though, I think making campaign designs AI-only is a disservice. The solution I'd suggest would be to create a Steam-enabled resource in which players could submit more balanced ship designs, which could then be reviewed a bit and composed into folders from which the AI could draw to put interesting designs on the playing field to challenge the player more thoroughly. It could possibly also be organised into subsets for each kind of ships - ~20" maximum BBs, ~18" super battleships, more balanced ~16" designs for battleships, ~11" supercruisers, ~9" large cruisers, and ~8" heavy cruisers for heavy cruisers, as an example, to provide a bit of structure, and variability for how the AI responds. I wouldn't want to have the AI replaced, mind you - this would just be an option you can choose instead of the AI, which, I imagine, will become progressively better at building balanced ships as development continues. However, I don't know much of the coding for the game, so this might not be possible - just a suggestion, really. Torpedo spam isn't just a problem, it's a nightmare On the topic of AI building, a persistent issue I've run into with the AI is that everything up to 20k tonne super cruisers arrives with half their weight made up of torpedos. While it does make some sense to have specific styles be torpedo-heavy (the IJN particularly was famous for that), having every damn sub-capital flood the battlefield with 20-track torpedo broadsides can be incredibly annoying. It often makes the ships themselves very weak otherwise - a destroyer with a single 4" gun and 20 torpedos can only really do one thing well. Transports get away scot free In a convoy escort battle, sinking the escorts means the battle ends with the transports getting away, meaning you either need to ignore the escorts entirely and send a 40kn monstrosity to go grab the convoy, or string along a half-dead cruiser until you can get the convoy dead. Killing the escorts should mean you automatically kill the transports - either that, or don't end the battle and give me the satisfaction of massacring the poor, defenceless transports. Maybe I'm a bad person. Fore-aft balancing can be a pain Now, this one isn't quite as pressing for gameplay, but it's something that can sometimes irritate me when creating a ship. It's not terribly difficult to balance a ship down to <1% fore or aft offset. However, getting it down to 0 is genuinely painful. I'd propose the option to (heh) offset this by adding ballast on the fore or aft, possibly with a minor weight and/or pitch penalty. This isn't super pressing though - maybe it's just a skill issue on my part. The system of parts clicking onto points on the hull poses an aneurysm risk The number of times I've sat and had my eyes nearly pop out of my head with irritation because a barbette or secondary tower clicks onto the hull a metre or two away from where I want it has probably had serious health repercussions for me by this point. I don't necessarily want to change the system entirely, because it's very useful, but a bit more granularity in where one can place the parts onto the hull would do wonders for my mental and physical health - forgiving systems save lives. The campaign map system is, err, hmmm This one's very low on the priority list because the current campaign system is clearly a beta version intended to allow players to get a small amount of campaigning to spice up gameplay, not to get a final system. However, it's pretty jank as is - there's little ability to duplicate actual strategy beyond putting fleets in a general area and hoping they do the job you want them to. My ideal system would be to get it to something like Rule the Waves 2, where you continuously control the locations and actions of various forces, but that's perhaps not achievable - a more arcadey system would still be great fun, but please, a little more actual campaigning. Also, in the far future, being able to do stuff like bombarding ports would be a welcome addition. On a general note though, this game is incredibly promising, and I'm going to follow it very closely - hopefully by playing it as much as possible. Keep up the good work!
×
×
  • Create New...