Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

78 Excellent

About WilliamTheIII

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

79 profile views
  1. Unlike in UGCW, this game is a lot more heavily scripted meaning that most missions have a certain amount of ship, etc. However, scaling exists so that the player doesn't receive an overwhelming advantage against the ai quite quickly as the difference between a 5th and a sloop is quite dramatic. For priority, you are supposed to be heavily outnumbered as you were intercepted by a large enemy fleet while escorting the walpole out. So because you brought a 5th, the enemy was receiving all 5th's to keep the presence that you are outmatched (it's still very winnable). Later in the campaign, the ai will start to get better ships regardless of what you bring because of the scripting meaning that not having any large ships (unless your fire ship spamming) can become quite detrimental to your campaign. Also, its not supposed to be a necessarily fair match as the purpose is to provide a challenge to the player and stop them from just waltzing on through the entire game. Finally, I don't think crew is the best comparison when saying things become unbalanced as the functionality of the ship is more important that the actual size of the crew ignoring not enough crew and just pure boarding meta. Btw, I would not recommend buying ships as its a massive waste of money imo. Capturing them and turning them against your foes is devastatingly effective tactic.
  2. Please make sure to use f11 in game. It provides a lot of information for the devs so they can quickly fix the problem.
  3. I assume that when you mean log in, you are referring to being able to play the game and not actually logging onto the launcher. If the latter that is a xsolla problem and would need to contact them. For the former, the fact that restarting your computer didn't close the program is odd to say the least. Though for future reference, if you open up task manager and go to more details, you will find a process called 'launcher' that can be shut down and it will force close the game if open in the background.
  4. As the game roughly follows the life of Nelson, they want to stick with his quotes rather than it just being random cool quotes. Though as there is a JPJ campaign, it would definitely makes sense for his quotes to be in the loading screen as well. The complete campaign will include 5 US/UK Chapters and if the game sells well, dlc with additional campaigns will be added. There has been discussion on a better and more customizable custom battle option but nothing besides just discussion.
  5. Hearts of Iron is a poor example because it has native support for Mac OS where AOS does not. My idea is that that because you are using a VM, it is screwing with the game because of the lack of support.
  6. It does, if you fully run aground your ship starts to sink and eventually, the water rushing in will overpower the pumps and crew and will sink. Unfortunately, there is no current system to get yourself unstuck which is incredibly frustrating.
  7. Some time after EA release. The goal right now is to polish the game and once the devs consider it “good enough”, they will release it on steam where subsequent chapters will he released and possible ore campaigns with dlc.
  8. This is such an awesome idea but I totally agree would be very difficult to implement. The naval mission priority already has several of the features you mission and could be used to make a more interesting "run away" mission. Although the randomness of ai movement and the restrictions that come with sailing could leave to a lot of frustration and an overall failure of the system. For land at least, this is much more doable where you could potentially have random patrols. One mission that comes to mind is the one where you have to attack a british fort while the soldiers are out partying. You have to dodge patrols with your units and capture the fort or else a large force comes to reinforce the fort making things much more difficult.
  9. This game is not supported on Mac OS which could be causing a problem even if you are running Windows. Although I am not a Mac user, my guess that it would be a potential issue from using a VM (I believe that's what running in parallel means) rather than dual booting.
  10. What do you mean by unit morale? There is already a morale system for every available unit in game. Also, units that shatter do leave the battle and never come back. Are you asking for the shatter conditions made looser so more units shatter? For units routing into your lines, this is probably a bug still in the works as the ai is programmed to run away from the enemy. Something about how Bunker Hill is designed or something seems to be throwing them off. I would seriously disagree with the idea that surrendered units shouldn't be able to be recaptured and used against you. The rts part of the game does not coincide well with the management part of the game and thus the only opportunity recaptured units will have to fight you again is to do it in the battle itself. The current system adds a layer of depth and caution where you need to protect your prisoners for the potential of a large boon. However, there is also a feature that allows you to "kill" the prisoners which can be role played to saying that these soldiers have "signed a contract" and won't fight you anymore. Assuming you don't care about the reward for having prisoners. While I would agree that having a slow, methodical and calculated battle would be quite enjoyable and add a lot to the strategy element of the game, we must be careful of making things too methodical and too boring. Personally, I feel that most strategy elements and planning should happen on a redefined campaign map but that is a different discussion for a different game. It is also very crucial that we don't get wrapped up in "this is what happened in real life argument" as games that put realism above good game play will often burn and fall. The very moment you fight bunker hill and win or the second you do so something A-historical, you are no longer following history either nor are you necessarily being realistic. Although, that is not to say that there is a lot of inspiration to be taken from history. Just that solely relying on will most likely prove a poor game decision.
  11. 2. This technically already exists but is done automatically and is only available on higher ships. Although not much is known about them, I believe that while they use the same stats of the crew, they are generally better at boarding. Not entirely sure how officers affect them and the like. More player influence these units would be really quite nice. 3. This would be very handy in battle instead of having to memorize the data from the harbor. Perhaps adding the penetration values on the left side of the cone would be nice. For infantry, iirc, the musket variables are quite negligible. 4. Myself and Panda are doing our best to go through and edit all of the text in game and some times writing things from scratch can be quite difficult. If you have any suggestions on what text should be written there, I can add it in and would be much appreciated. 7. Once ships are in range (depends on the gun being used) the crews will automatically fire at each other. An upgrade that increases the rate of fire or something could still be pretty cool.
  12. I can see how what I said could be interpreted this way although it wasn't my intention so I apologize. I was more meaning to explain why trophy ships come with all their cannons as it makes sense and is honestly the easiest way to handle things. In the process, I was trying to explain why the "double standard" exists. Also, we have discussed this topic at length and really has gone no where and at this point it is best to agree to disagree.
  13. Although we discussed this on discord, I appreciate that you decided to put it on the forum and I will share my feedback as well: In the very beginning, this was a big selling point that the game wouldn't be nearly as linear as UGCW. Unfortunately, from what I have heard/witnessed, the devs did not have the time nor the resources to amply design a non-linear, open world system. In my opinion, the best way to do this would have there be "random encounters" where you essentially places parts of your fleet in different areas of the map and the ai reacts to you and vice versa. I could expand further but not the time nor place. I think this is referring to the idea that UGCW roughly followed the Civil War and the major battles where AOS is loosely based on historical battles and are a lot more like random encounters. As we discussed in discord and panda stated here, the role of wind is pushing the ship to one side or another changing the overall angle of the projectile motion curve and thus the time it takes to hit water which affects the distance. There is a lot of micro, hopefully several qol features could be added such as match speed that will help alleviate the problem. I always thought some sort of "prisoner ship" would be cool. The idea would be that you would lose a slot for an additional ship but would never have to worry about surrendered ships unsurrendering unless boarded. This would be cool and as Panda has mentioned this is true to some degree. Though, I always thought having some sort of national bonuses (like the british shoot faster) would be cool.
  14. For mechanical reasons, capturing a ship and not having its cannons come along with it would mess with a lot of things and its just easier for it to work as it does. For cannons, you have to understand that capturing 100% of them will break game balance and is bad game play. They very much are, most of the code is carryover and has been adapted to fit this game 😕 You do receive a higher percentage from captured units. And for the love of God, please stop saying "would happen in the real world". This isn't a movie but a game. A game based on history still needs to have the primary focus be on good gameplay and not realism to a fault. This is very possibly the worst argument that could be provided for any request. Forcing the player to lose a unit in place for another unit is stupid. Even if you would want to convert your marines into artillery, you are essentially cheating the system by receiving a free and cheaper unit instead of creating one. As I have mentioned time and time again on your posts, this is most likely an unintended consequence of not being able to capture artillery in vanilla UGCW. The game thinks that the captured artillery units is actually yours to begin with and therefore doesn't register it as captured and thus you receive no pieces from it. Hopefully this will get fixed when the devs have some free time. Constantly complaining about it isn't going to make it come any faster. You literally just said how you think that they should work the same. This was the reasoning used to justify 100% artillery capture. Mate go read the update history and then come back to this. False, they are making good gameplay decisions. I can almost guarantee that the feature of having your units convert into artillery after the battle was unintentional. I don't think the repair cost actually takes into account your gun losses. Mainly just your hull, sail, and armor. Has been tested and the results seem to indicate that it does not. The only possibility is if the guns are being heavily discounted.
  15. 1 full and 1 short are planned for both. Additional chapters and campaigns will be released at dlc assuming the game sells well
  • Create New...