Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

anonusername

Members2
  • Posts

    134
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by anonusername

  1. I think the game urgently needs an option to spend prestige to influence politics. Leaving task forces to burn fuel outside a minor until the invasion ticks is both gamey and unreliable. It would work a lot better to have a combination of randomized invasion missions and the ability to spend prestige to spawn an invasion mission.
  2. Pretty sure that is a bot. Probably posting some random AI comments to build a post history before shilling for a product to make the spam less obvious.
  3. Yes, this has been needed for a long time. I think I made multiple posts on this all the way back when EA ended, and I believe there were others making the same suggestion.
  4. On 1.5 this seems to cause the game to load infinitely on start.
  5. You have to look at the actual efficiency of the armor, not just the total thickness. Harvey belts may weight more than Iron, but they have twice the strength per inch and are equally efficient for turret armor, whereas using iron can lead to overweight turrets ruining your BB's handling. Also, Iron increases hull and engine weight, further cutting into the weight benefits.
  6. Yes, but the issue here is not HE penetrating, but HE sinking battleships without any penetrations at all. If you are firing 18" HE shells from a 1950 BB at a BC and can penetrate the thinner armor, it is entirely reasonable for the BC to sink much faster than AP could achieve. However, usually penetrations vs. ships with a similar armor effectiveness requires the higher penetration of AP. If you could penetrate BB armor with HE, then you would just use the HE shell as your AP and use an even more explosive shell for HE.
  7. This is working as designed, iron plate is meant to be thick and light but low quality for belt armor, but heavy and similarly low quality for deck armor.
  8. This has happened since early access. I usually just ignore the poor sector of fire warning and manually check all the guns.
  9. I have bought every previous UG and UA game, and purchased the special edition of UA:D before it was on steam. However, I am reluctant to purchase this title because of my experience with UA:D. I was very disappointed in UA:D because it rushed into adding a bunch of new features while leaving serious bugs and exploits in the core tactical gameplay. e.g. ( ) Will this game be developed at a more sustainable pace? I don't mind if a promised feature is delayed, or even dropped, but when there are serious bugs in the core gameplay it is impossible for me the enjoy the game. The best part of the earlier UG titles was the tight tactical combat with only minor bugs and exploits (e.g. the ability to break AI charges in UG:CW by abusing skirmishers was relatively minor and only a problem if deliberately abused.).
  10. Very disappointing this bug still isn't fixed. I stopped playing right around 1.1 because of all the bugs in the core combat gameplay, and was hoping they had been fixed by now.
  11. Why is it even desirable for HE shells to be able to sink battleships? I think that HE shells should have a dramatically lower chance to spread fires below decks without a penetration. This will allow them to continue functioning as a means for weaker ships to destroy superstructures, or for large ships to deal more damage to smaller ones, without allowing the current silliness.
  12. Seems like the gun penetration might be overtuned if historical armor belts at max quality are being penetrated by 12" guns. Previously, the gun penetration had to be exaggerated to penetrate the ridiculously thick armor belts. I think the armor limits should be raised moderately (enough to enable all historical builds, plus maybe an inch or so extra where suitable.) and the penetration characteristics should be re-evaluated.
  13. Is it feasible to have the machinery forward of the funnels?
  14. It's almost certainly possible to reverse engineer the asset loading system enough to inject new models. Whether it is possible to do so without being an experienced reverse engineer or unity developer is another matter. (Also, even if it is possible, it is likely to be a lot of work just to get to a point where you can add new assets at all.)
  15. Easy to use mod tools are a lot of work to make. It is already possible to mod the game using unity tools, except for the compiled code. (And even the compiled code could be modded by a competent reverse engineer, there just isn't any good mechanism for combining multiple code mods since il2cpp isn't compatible with harmony.)
  16. Destroying their entire fleet should cause them to surrender all their overseas territories (and possibly other concessions) instead of collapsing. Collapse should happen only from prolonged blockades or land invasions. It would neat if collapse was also changed to work more like Victoria II Great Wars where the losing country is reduced to their essential territories, their border territories given to neighboring powers, and their overseas bases auctioned off among their enemies.
  17. Seconding this. At the minimum provinces should have a certain "strategic value" which the government chooses targets based on. e.g. the USA and Japan should prioritize Hawaii, European powers should be interested in Egypt if the UK collapses, etc.
  18. Importing new hulls is probably possible, just a *lot* harder than rebalance mods. The rebalance mods mostly only require editing a csv file containing all the stats. Importing new models would require creating/obtaining/extracting models, textures, etc., converting them to a format compatible with the game, adding them to the asset files, and creating new entries in the csv files for them.
  19. I had played the game since the initial alpha, but took a "break" due to frustration with some persistently broken mechanics (e.g. the "penetration overflow" bug, endless warfare, etc.) when early access was ended. I am interested in how the game has progressed, since I think it has a lot of potential despite the buggy launch. Has the game improved substantially since the launch? Is it worth playing for fun now? (As opposed to playing to help test.)
  20. The limitations on barbette number is already covered by tech now, so the hull based restrictions just feel like relics of an older version of the game.
  21. I think that possibly being slightly excessive with ranges is much superior to previous status quo. I'm taking a break from this game because of the frustration of dealing with bugs, but it looks like a promising set of changes.
  22. They probably did a decent job, but pushed something out without proper testing again. It really seems like the devs don't have the time to actually playtest their own game. I wouldn't be surprised if admiralsnackbar spent more time testing his balance changes than the devs spend playing the game.
  23. Ship hoarding is a serious problem, sinking obsolete pre-dreadnoughts lets the player farm VP far too easily. TB swarms are incredibly boring to fight as well.
  24. Multiple campaign types, coastal battles, etc. probably fall under new features that are too complex to develop and bugfix in 6 months. I wouldn't mind seeing DLC offering some of those proposed features though.
  25. 1. Penetration still has some bugs. e.g. Ships will block 12" guns while 5" penetrates. 2. The campaign UI doesn't provide concrete, quantifiable feedback. There are tooltips indicating that various actions have *some* effect, but it is often difficult to determine the magnitude, if any, of the effects. Even a simple "minor/major boost" notification would help. 2a. How do logistics and army size affect naval invasion? How does the number of ships affect naval invasions? Does the bombardment capacity affect naval invasions? 2b. How do transports affect GDP growth? 2c. How do blockades and sunk transports affect the enemies performance in land battles? Do nearby navies affect land battles? 2d. How willing is the AI to accept a peace deal? What would make them more willing? 2e. How is the player's tech budget multiplying their research progress? How is the "early/late" modifier affecting research progress? 2f. How do the player's actions affect their relation with minors? 2e. What are the prerequisites for getting a mission to invade a minor? How many of these does the player currently meet? 2f. How many ships can be in a zone without imposing a relation penalty? How close is the player to this value? 2g. What proportion of shipbuilding capacity comes from GDP vs. shipyard size? 2h. How does one trigger a port bombardment? (I haven't managed to do this since the global map.) 3. The player's ability to guide the progress of their campaign is too limited. 3a. No way for the player to encourage a naval invasion of a minor. 3b. No way to influence politics and avoid crippling GDP penalties. 3c. No way to request the land army to prioritize a certain region. 4. The map needs to be made wrap-around. This not just cosmetic, it greatly affects the ability of a player to manage a pacific war. I think the game has a problem with providing functional systems, but not actually providing a decent UI for the player to interact with them. Good UI is not just cosmetics, the player needs to be able to interact with gameplay features without excessively convoluted or tedious menus. Furthermore, the UI must be reactive and provide good feedback to the player so they can understand how their interactions influence the gameplay features.
×
×
  • Create New...