Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'suggestion'.

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • Naval Action
    • Naval Action Community and Support
    • Naval Action - National Wars and Piracy
    • Naval Action Gameplay Discussions
    • Naval Action - Other languages
    • Naval Action (Русский язык)
  • Ultimate General
    • Ultimate General: Civil War
    • Ultimate General: Gettysburg
    • Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail
    • Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts
    • Forum troubleshooting
  • Age of Sail Historical Discussions
    • Shipyard
    • History
  • Sea Legends
    • General Discussions
  • This land is my land
    • General discussions
  • Game-Labs Forum
    • Jobs
  • SealClubbingClub's Topics
  • Pyrates and rovers's Literature & Media
  • Pyrates and rovers's Gameplay / Roleplay
  • Pyrates and rovers's History - ships, events, personae
  • Clan [GWC] Nederlands talig {Aanmelding}'s Topics
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Rekrutacja
  • Polska Flota Kaperska's Historia - Polska na morzach
  • Chernomoriya's Topics
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's Mysteries
  • Unsolved mysteries in plain sight's The Book of Rules
  • Congress of Vienna's Global
  • Congress of Vienna's EU
  • Congress of Vienna's Historical
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's The Dutch Empire
  • The Dutch Empire's Discord Server
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's The Rulebook
  • ROVER - A treatise on proper raiding in NA developed by real events's Tactics (methods)
  • Ship Auctions's Topics
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's How to...
  • closed's Topics
  • Catalunya's Comença la llibertat !!
  • Port Battle History's Topics


  • Game Friv 4 School
  • Mad things going on
  • Duels (1v1)
  • semenax1's Blog
  • Bernhart's Blog
  • John Dundas Cochrane's Blog
  • The adventures of W. Laurence
  • kusumetrade's Blog
  • fastbug blog
  • tai game co tuong mien phi
  • Log Book
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • sellfifa's Blog
  • Captaine Arnaud Arpes' Log
  • Remir's Blog
  • Real Armada Española
  • Core Blackthorn's Blog
  • Saltback's Blog
  • British Privateer
  • Game App Development
  • Game App Development
  • Brogsitter's logbook
  • maturin's Blog
  • Antonio_Pigafetta's Blog
  • Ingemar Ulfgard's Blog
  • News Sports Blog
  • Saffronsofindia
  • Cpt Blackthorne's Blog
  • linksbobet88's Blog
  • Tube Nations Game Givaway
  • English Nation Gunners Blog
  • Commodore Clay
  • From the Conny's Deck
  • About Madden NFL 17
  • Travel between Outposts
  • Blurring reality as artist’s 3D model tricks
  • Download Only file APK for Android
  • Testing stuff
  • Traitors Gallery
  • Tracker of Good Stuff
  • Emoninail
  • TpGS2019~~Nice experience
  • Organifi Gold Juice Review
  • Fitness Programmer
  • Implications of Electricity Deregulation in the United States
  • The Process of Lottery Results
  • htrehtrwqef
  • Best Ways To Overcome Hair Loss Issues
  • Boost Your Testosterone Levels For Building Bigger Muscles
  • Teds Woodworking
  • The 2 Week Diet
  • Five Fat Loss Workout Routine Exercises
  • Captains Log, September 1756
  • Log of Cpt. Nicholas Ramage II. Esq; RN
  • Average Gamer Marcs: A Naval Action Story
  • Thiên hạ Ku
  • From The Logbook of Captain Sir Sebastian Pendragon, KB; RN
  • Rachel Tran
  • Thẻ game W88
  • Thẻ game W88
  • Log of Sir Elio Perlman, KB
  • 바카라카지노
  • f8bet nhà cái uy tín
  • Why should you play 1v1 lol game?
  • The Sea Dogs's Website
  • [CTC] Caribbean Trading Company (Pirates - PvP EU)'s Buy ur Favorite Ships.
  • Creative - Captains & Ships Logs's (Naval Action fiction) Diary of Cdr. Joseph Barss


  • Community Calendar
  • United States Continental Navy's Pearl Harbor Day

Find results in...

Find results that contain...

Date Created

  • Start


Last Updated

  • Start


Filter by number of...


  • Start





Website URL







  1. 1. It is crazy that having both dual- and triple-barreled turrets still gives the "mixed barrels" accuracy penalty. Needs to be fixed. 2. We need to be able to accelerate time more freely. 3. We need more freedom over formations. What is a "loose" screen in 1890 is far too tight for 1940. Perhaps change the spacing toggle to a distance slider we can set in km? 4. We need front/back citadel armor (probably for citadel III & higher). Right now, an enemy that cannot penetrate your armor is the most dangerous. They will shoot you with HE & destroy you by penning your bow & stern. Damage bleed means your ship's protected spaces will rapidly become destroyed & then flood. 5. Number of hulls, beam/draft, and citadel type must be locked during refits. 6. Spotting needs to be increased to 150-200% of what it currently is. 7. We need a "hold formation" toggle to prevent damaged ships from falling out of line. 8. Please make the "reverse" button turn red when you hover your mouse of it, and/or move it away from the "attach or remove from division" button. 9. We MUST be able to share ship designs on the steam workshop! 10. Moving to ports is very buggy. If the tooltip pops up, I should always go to that port. In practice, I end up very often right next to it. 11. Moving a superstructure with barbettes/funnels attached *STILL* somehow doesn't move the turrets on those barbettes or funnels. Extremely annoying. 12. (Not sure) It seems like the width of the hull is not taken into account for buoyancy calculations. There should be a lot more floating percentage in the middle of the hull than in the bow. It seems like every segment is treated the same, which should not be the case. 13. Mothballing a ship is STILL cancelled by "add crew". Impossible to fight a war & still have ships mothballed. 14. This is supposedly the final release. Do you really want all that "aim info" in the side panel? Should we really be able to know what every component of the enemy ship is? Should we know exactly when they fire torpedoes? Is this game really finished? Anyways, should probably hide all that stuff (& eventually build an espionage system). God, this game is not release-ready. 15. Higher tech levels should have a "counterflooding" technology which reduces or prevents roll due to flooding. 16. The AI really really really needs to prioritize ship balance more. It's very rare that it comes up with a design capable of landing first hits. 17. Needs to be an "offer for sale" button in the Fleet tab. Also, you need to counteroffer a minor power with "what about this different design" or "how about this ship I already have built?" 18. Need to be able to armor the steering gear, the same way we can armor the conning tower. 19. Must investigate why battleships achieve disproportionate numbers (>90%) of deck hits vs cruisers at short (<5km) range. 20. Need to have fore/aft pitch effects due to flooding. Bow flooding ought to cause far more of a slowdown than stern flooding, due to being bow-down. 21. Naval invasions are very strange. You can be invading an army of ~300 men with overwhelming (~300,000ts in a ~30,000-ton-required invasion) force, and still fail after 6 months. Everything else I have is more extensive than a must-fix item (eg: we need distinct turret models/sizes for single vs triple turrets), so I won't include them here.
  2. Not sure if this has been suggested before, but : When starting a campaign, the setup and initial fleet autodesign should start immediately. This would shorten the wait for the campaign to start, especially if it could work in the background as i design my own initial fleet. Maybe spawning campaign setup as a separate thread. Create some kind of incentive to keep your active gun sizes as few as possible. This to simulate the benefits of standardization and to reduce the amount of weird gun diameters that appear in campaign. Especially with smaller guns. Make gun stats linear from the base model towards the gun they are scaling towards of the same mark. eg 4.1" MK1 has the stats (4" mk1 + 10% of delta Stats 4"mk1/Stats 5" mk1). This to avoid any weirdness.
  3. I would say that this idea is better suited for a mod/DLC, or at least players should have an option to disable this content. With the tech tree being gradually expanded (modern armor comes to mind for example) and some branches being already too long (20" mark 5 guns are basically unobtanium unless you focus on big guns during the entire game, and since gun barrels were added turret mechanisms seem to be overloaded as well) I wonder if the campaign should be extended to 1960 or even further. And with that it might be time to go nuclear! Nuclear propulsion for ships and submarines (hell, maybe even auxiliary reactors for super battleships), nuclear large-caliber shells and torps (for naval bombardment or maybe even to try and yeet an enemy battleship out of existence). Might also include stuff like "Radiation protection" to Internal Protection tech branch, "On-board Atomic Clock" to Control Towers etc
  4. Feature Proposal: New upgrade option for Shells in the Armament Sub tree during ship building/refit allowing the ship to use colored dye packs in their rounds to lessen, but not eliminate, the interference of multiple ships shooting at the same target. Inspiration: I thought about this as I was listening to the story of Taffy 3 on YT. It is described that because the IJN fleet did not have radar in the fleet, except for on the Yamato herself, they used colored dye packs to help distinguish which splashes were theirs. As a result, fountains of yellow, blue, green, purple, pink and red splashes were seen in the mix with Yamato's white splashes which were not colored with dye packs. Balancing Considerations: Obviously, this cannot be as simple as this item reduces interference from your ship and other ships significantly as it would render the choice between Rangefinders C and S almost meaningless. So instead, I propose that it would cut down on the interference from other ships by a slight to moderate amount and boost your own ship's aiming speed slightly since they can more easily tell which splashes are theirs and adjust more accurately.
  5. The current blockade system is simply measuring the strength of each side and whoever has more "Power Projection" blockade the other. And 99% of the time the fight never happen. However that's not how blockade works in real life. Blockade is not about who has more guns or more ships, it's about the one side think they can't fight so they stay home. As someone has said "the victor is not victorious if the vanquished does not consider himself so". Regardless of the strength differences, if the blockaded side wants to fight the fight has to happen or the blockade simply doesn't exist. My suggestion is, make "Blockade" another mission like "Sea Control", "Defend", and "Invade". The task force has to stay in the area for more than 1-2 turns for blockade to take effect. And during this mission this task force will have 100% encounter rate with another "Blockade" task force. Off-topic but since we're talking about missions, I think we should have a dedicated "Intercept" mission. I feel like we can't target another task force directly but if we can order a task force to intercept a specific task force directly it would be a lot more fun for the players.
  6. Issue: On the Campaign map, if there are 2 fleets that are on top of each other, or a fleet on top of an enemy port, it is impossible to click on the fleet/port underneath. Steps to reproduce: First scenario: create a fleet of 2 ships and put them to sea. On the following turn, move only 1 ship to a new spot of sea. Now attempt to select the 2nd ship that is now underneath the departing one. Images for this scenario are attached showing 3 ships in June 1900 and once they moved away in July 1900 the 17 ships underneath were revealed. Second scenario: Move your fleet onto an enemy port without having the tactic unlocked that allows for port strikes. I accomplished this by moving my German fleet onto the port of Portland in the USA just north of Boston. I had to go through several turns before the game picked my fleet as the one that was on top so I could select it and move it away. In the intervening turns, I could see a pixel's width of the German flag underneath the American one. Unfortunately, I do not have screen shots of this scenario. Proposed solution: Allow for the game to recognize when when multiple task forces are stacked on top of each other, both friendly or friendly and enemy units, and when the stack is clicked, bring up a prompt that would allow the player to choose what task force they are attempting to select. Rationale: Implementing the proposed solution as a feature would allow the player, and by extension the AI if the devs would allow it, to split a task force multiple times in a single turn. As an example, this would allow tactical deployments to cover multiple chokepoints at once, such as the Philippines where multiple waterways are separated by islands.
  7. I'd love to see an "Advanced mode" for Custom Battles which allows you to specifically select arbitrary techs (per side) rather than just selecting a year. It would allow for a far greater range of possibilities in both historical and ahistorical scenarios, such as: Better representation of Refits outside of the Campaign. e.g. 1930's refit of a WW1 Era Dreadnought with older engines, armour and primary armament, but modernized towers, fire control and secondaries. What if [Insert Technology Here] had developed much faster/slower than in OTL? Pre-Dreds with Radar FC and/or 18-inch guns, 1940's Torpedos in 1900, strongly lopsided naval gun development (Mk V 2-inch but only Mk I 12-Inch guns), etc. Greater ability to simulate Historical ship classes. For example the various 15-inch armed Battleships commissioned early in WW1 (currently the 15-inch guns don't become available ingame until the very End of the War and even then are straight up worse than the 12-inch guns they are supposed to replace). As for implementation, i could see something along the lines of being shown the research screen from the campaign (with all techs revealed) and the being able to select and deselect any of the techs presented, in the drop down menus of the individual categories.
  8. DISCLAIMER: THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A LONG TERM SUGGESTION WHICH IS A LOW PRIORITY I know many here believe that anti-ship missiles and SAMs are completely out of the scope of the game and have too many new mechanics, but please please hear me out. Here are the reasonns why I think they can be implemented in an entertaining way: Until the mid 1970s, the vast majority of anti-ship missiles had less than 100km range, and SAM ranges rarely exceeded 50km. Given that 16in+ shells in the game already exceed 30km in range, this isn't such a massive increase in scale. Both ASMs and SAMs before the introduction of VLS systems have similar mountings as torpedos and guns, with either angled racks or turreted armed launchers. The ship designer therefore wouldn't need to be completely overhauled. WW2 era ships were retrofitted with missiles, so there is a precedent to add them in game, plus you wouldn't need to add drastically different hulls. When you think about it SAMs simply guided artillery shells with longer range and much higher damage with higher accuracy which however can be shot down or spoofed. Apart from new visual effects and, a guidance mechanic and spoofing mechanic, everything else is already in game. Targeting with an ASM can be abstracted in terms of aim time just like torpedoes. Finally, Who doesn't want to retrofit their iowas with harpoons, or recreate the indo-pakistani and arab-israeli naval engagements? Here are the challenges and new features which would need to be added , which I think are surmountable and wouldnt break the game: SAMs would be more difficult to add, since we don't have anti-aircraft mechanics in game. However, their mechanics wouldn't be that much different to AA guns if theyre added . Both SAMs and AAA have to lock on to their targets, rotate launchers, reload, etc. If flash fires can be animated, the plume of a SAM motor can be animated too. Helicopters for midcourse guidance if target is beyond the horizon A 2D map to zoom out. This feature would also be useful for WW2 era ships already in the game, since its annoying to move your camera 20-30km between your ships and the enemy Ability to add different radar mounts on masts Ability to add chaff and flare launchers on ships
  9. I saw somewhere a request for how to build a campaign and I thought I'd try my best to come up with one suggestion. I searched for the correct place for the post - but hopefully a moderator will move it if necesary. I would like the option to run a single semi-historical campaign spanning through the time periods of the game. I know other people want more options/freedom but I think it's a choice and the campaign need to be structured accordingly and so I hope my suggestion makes sense for what I would like to see. I suggest the campaign will be built after a master semi-historical timeline with historical navy conflicts fitting the timelines of the game. The suggestion limits a players sandbox, but makes it easier to balance and secure the player experience while still having the option to be rather flexible. This is a very good way to make sure a campaign will be able to follow a somewhat accurate picture of history, but at the same time prevents a lot of random or chaotic campaigns some other players might like. If necesary it's possible to script necesary peace deals or conflicts when historical situations are difficult to find. The player should select 1 player nation from a handfull of great naval nations - some of them perhaps limited in their starting period if necesary. Minor nations will play a part but not as a main nation. To narrate the experience I find it usefull for you as an admiral to not be the commander of your nation but a subject of a government, but also an important advisor allowing you to take some decissions, but also be forced along the timeline for participation in further conflict. The player will start in the timeline he/she decides and as time progress will either be involved in conflict with his own nation - or as an "advisor" on behalf of other major or minor nations. This makes sure that no matter your choice of nation you will be able to participate. Basically splitting the campaign up into several small mini campaigns linked together. As an example starting as germany you could fight your own wars in the proper timelines and at other times you could "Supervise" and play as minor nations or other major nations. Perhaps even be able to supervise in 3 different levels: a) entire command basically taking over as it was your own nation (but returning to your own nation later) b) Help designing ships - perhaps using tech from both nations but not playing the battles c) Just give them tech and money (maybe earn some foreign ship designs) but let them handle themselves This means France should be able to play even in the part of time where they are occupied or in peace either from foreign ports or supervising some or part of the british, us or chinese fleet. And in the times of european peace participate in conflict in other parts of the world... This also - depending on the conflicts in which you are an advisor - could give you faster research in some areas, better own economy and the ability to build some ship hulls from other nations? Would also be cool to play as England but advising either Russia or Japan in that conflict and both being able to build your own designs and bring home some of the foreign designs when moving on... Maybe some nations should have more options for who to support and others be restricted. Apart from this raw sketch I have a few issues witht eh current mini campaign: Its over way too fast To get more variation perhaps the enemy AI should develope more than 1 design for each shiptype at a time. The transport slider makes very little sense Torpedos are king in the early campaign timeline - You can build a lot of torpedo boats and even though you get blockaded without bigger ships you will turn around pretty fast. I would advise looking into either shorter range (600m), duds and/or make the torpedoes more inaccurate... The map and port system I think is pretty cool. Ships should be organised into fleets/armadas - ships not in fleets should be in a reserve pool. Fleets/armadas should have a restricted tonnage or number decided by the admiralty or nation leadership which could be modified during the game Ships should be sailed to and operate from a port You need to have better control of your fleets behavior like being able to set allowed range from port, behavior and tasks like Coastal patrol, Coastal defense, Convoy guard, Raiding, Combat patrol, Harbor/fleet assault. Maybe even have a fleet operate in a specific area. More than 1 fleet could engage at a time, but if you have a fleet with plenty screening ships it should be difficult to catch that battleship alone. You should look into the balance when talking ships and economy. Players should not spam large ships (perhaps from restrictions made by his national leadership?) - at the same time its also important that a player is not always able to sink large enemy ships at will but maybe thats an AI problem? PinkyDK
  10. Currently in game adding radios to ships adds a percent based weight to the towers on the ship. Which mostly works alright but when you have high tonnage ships like BBs adding in radios adds well over 1,000 tons of weight which is really incorrect. Radio systems in WW2 are complex but each radio system tends to weigh less than 1 ton or just a few tons. Here is a pretty good website going over various WW2 naval radios including their full spec sheets: https://www.navy-radio.com/xmtr-ww2.htm You can see that even the heaviest parts of radios weigh less than 1 ton and it seems like most radios only have a small handful of parts weigh even that much. But it seems most of WW2 radios weigh less than 1 ton total. And this spec sheet seems to fully include the various antennas and other additional pieces of equipment that goes into the radio systems. My suggestion would be to probably change the radio component to be a set of ranges and tech tiers with fixed weights. As radio systems unlike pretty much all other systems that we can select in game have a more or less fixed weight largely independent of the size of the ship it's mounted on.
  11. It's been bothering me, that the Torpedo Boat Destroyer is still classified as a TB ingame but the "Large Torpedo Boat" variations are classed as DD's. Unless i'm missing something, it would seem more intuitive to swap these Hulls around as TBD's are typically conisidered some of the first destroyers. The easiest way to do this would probably be to just swap around the names. On a related note, is there any particular reason for the hard 600t tonnage and 1908 year cutoff for TB's? The tonnage limit essentially renders 199t of the Torpedo Boat Destroyers 600 to 800 tonne displacement range inacessible. It seems to me like it wouldn't be too difficult to make some of the techs, which increase DD displacement, also further increase TB displacement. As for the Year cutoff, again unless im misunderstanding something, im fairly sure many nations continued to make torpedo boats right through world war I and into world war II, although by that time they were beginning to rival some older DD's in displacement. Why not give nations, that kept the Torpedo boat Classification, some TB Hulls that allow the recreation of some of the later classes of Ships that are too small to easily be made with existing DD Hulls?
  12. Hi, As someone who has been (mostly) enjoying this fantastic game for the past two weeks or so, i have a complaint. I am becoming increasingly annoyed by the Auto Avoidance mode (hereby referred to as AAM) The first annoying thing about AAM is that it takes a squadron of destroyers of more than 3 ships about 2 hours to get in line of battle, after turning in circles about 20 times. And the most annoying implementation of AAM is that when your CAs are heading bow first into a destroyer so it can avoid (most) torpedos, and then decides a collison is close, so it turns broadside on with the DD and gets hit by the FULL salvo of torpedos. Please give us the option to disable AAM so that the more experienced commanders can do actual courses, and torpedo estimates. I dont think anyone could disagree to adding a option for you to disable it. just allowing you to overide these AAM adjustments is not enough because once the rudder has been turned to one side the damage has already been done.
  13. Here's something that has been mildly annoying me at times and which I think can be easily improved. Say you have a line of battle and you move a ship out of it. All the ships behind it keep following the lead ship in the line. But what if you want to remove the lead ship? You then have to reassign every other ship to the one behind it. What if assigning a ship to another ship or another direction made all the ones behind it follow that ship instead of the first one? If you want to remove it from the line, you could then easily select the ship behind it and click on the ship in front of it. That's one click instead of however many it takes to remake a line once the lead ship has to leave it.
  14. Ahoy captains and devcaptains! I've been playing this game for about 200 hours and I must say it is a lovely game. I enjoy the thing you can do with the free camera but I would like to propose a feature request that I think may be achievable in the near future. Currently in game - It is not a big issue but we all know that when we scroll in, we end up kinda on deck but somewhere in the middle of the ship, floating near the mainsail. Feature request - My request is that to zoom in but instead of stopping where it is, it can be default zoom into the helm of the ship. I tried using the free camera but it is stationary while the ships bobs around sometimes clipping into the floor. -An example is attached - I am hoping that scrolling-in in the future can give us this really cool view at the helm everytime. Misc - I am not too picky if the wheel doesnt turn in this view because that is so minor it can always be implemented in the distant future. - However, i think having this view adds aesthetically to the game experience. You are after all the captain of your ship, it'll be nice to have a good overall view =D That is all for my feature request. I hope it is a decent request as I have not found any threads on this during my prior search. Fair winds and following seas, Captain Personthing.
  15. In the Naval Academy mod, players are tasked with designing ships suitable for that specific mission. I think it would be great if Naval Academy missions could be divided by nations with separate order or list, because each mission combined with the a short briefing text, could be a powerful teaching tool for both new players and enthusiasts. This game covers 1890~1940's naval greatpowers and their competition for naval supremacy. The amount of historical, geopolitical and military knowledge needed to fully understand and enjoy the game is quite daunting even for a naval enthusiast myself, for I am only knowledgeable about the Pacific war, but not as well for other theatres or the Great War. With a separate and properly ordered list of missions, you can teach players each nation's general interests and political views on her allies and rivals also teach general flow of ship developments and their driving factors, thus general idea on how to build ships in that specific era for that nation i.e. Des Moines class cruisers were developed with auto loading 8 inch guns wired with advanced fire control to counter Japanese destroyers, Kriegsmarine couldn't deal with superior Royal Navy and had to develope fast battleships for convoy raiding augmented by hit and run tactics, Japanese developed torpedo centric screen fleets to remain competitive after naval treaties, Post Jutland ships saw more emphasis on deck armors, older guns had no stabilizer and were very unaccurate. etc. relive, simulate or hypothesize historical battles Also, I think it would be nice to keep a list of non nation specific general missions like "Destroyer vs Battleship" or "Gun Basics" because they both serve as a tutorial and a challenge. Thanks for reading.
  16. If this doesn't make sense allow me: the Scharnhorst class had 3x11in gun turrets. These were planned to be replaced with the 2x15in gun turrets which would be used on Bismark and Tirpitz. Same turret ring size. Try doing this ingame. Yeah... why this is a necesary alteration should be self explanatory. So turrets should go Barbette ring>gun caliber>barrel number. Too many barrels in too small a turret? Accuracy and RoF penalties. Length of the guns should also be taken into consideration, not just the bore diameter.
  17. A list of suggestions to better the game and for variety. The Guns - I would personally like to see more unique turret designs for nationality as i see nearly every nation has the same 18" guns and alot have the same 4" to 8" guns. also it doesnt make sense that japanese and french have the same designs as they are quite different in reality im sure that is a goal but it really is quite important because its almost like building the same ship everytime The Guns Again - The addition of Quadruple Turrets into the game is kind of important as they are present on ships in history especially in french as well as the UK that should be an option to be added Hull and Superstructure - More variety in those areas would be nice as alot of the dreadnoughts have literally identical superstructure and hull no matter the nation also for cruisers they all have like the exact same superstructure in 1940 Aircraft Carriers - I think that that would be very interesting to be added into the game. although large it really changes alot of mechanics and more customization. like adding AA to ships and building carriers would be very cool i think that would be a very nice addition to the game and would add mroe "flavour" Cheats - For Custom Battles i think there should be an option to just build the most outrageous ship and that would be interesting. what i mean is no displacement total or literally just game breaking things like making a 10000 ton destroyer Diversity - Honestly Just Making The Ships more diverse for each nation really changes alot and makes the game more enjoyable Thanks!
  18. To more accurately represent battle line formations I propose the following: Accuracy penalty when under fire. This represents increased stress under combat conditions. This incentivises the targeting of every ship in a battle line. The targeting of every ship in a line is historical. Ships in a battle line will target the closest un-engaged ship first. Perhaps there could be the potential that the wrong ship is targeted based upon captains skill and luck. The above have precedent in the battle of Jutland.
  19. I recommend adding the ability to deploy ships boats to tow a ship. This can be useful if a ship is de-masted, beached in a bad position, or attempting to sail against the wind.
  20. Love the dreadnought and age of sail games, cant wait to play both. Fans of these games will love the Destroyermen series, by Taylor Anderson. The books feature tons of military engineering and nautical adventures in a rusty, ww1 era US destroyer transported to another, alien world, facing all sorts of foes along the way. Tech in the series plays an important role, and includes everything from age of sail vessels, ironclads, steamships, aircraft carriers, and much more. It would be dope to see some nods to the series in the games, and maybe even more customization or modding tools to let us see hypothetical battles between hordes of indiamen crewed by raptors against a battered destroyer, or have the bamboo and ducttape aircraft of the alliance duke it out over the fleets, in one game. A man can dream...
  21. While designing my ships it happens from time to time that somehow I end up accidentally picking up placed components. This is particualrly annoying if said components are rotated, placed on the finer grid or have other stuff on them. What I would suggest is a lock-mode of sorts. When it's active, you can not change any already placed components and only add new ones. This could be switched on and off either via a check-box in the interface or with a dedicated toggle-key accompanied with a UI element that shows whether you are currently in lock mode or not. There's plenty of room for such an indicator at the top left and right of Exit and Launch respectively. As a bonus this mode might allow to rotate turrets and launchers in place, which would make the rotating process potentially easier.
  22. I would love to be able to use the lights on the ships, Also can u add whether and aircraft carriers to. I know its alot to ask but i'm just making a suggestion
  23. Most scenarios I do where I must make one large BB go up against an enemy fleet I usually do well until my rudder gets damaged and I then cant maneuver. This would be fine but it NEVER repairs. So I am stuck going in a strait line forever and die because I cant dodge torps nor angle against shots. Is there anyway this can get changed so that the rudder eventually repairs to at least half strength?
  24. So my main issue with the game right now is honestly the lack of customization. Wait, hear me out. I got this game with the expectation of something akin to Spore's creature creator but with ships, or something like NavalArt on steam but actually good. Something I think would MASSIVELY improve the game is the ability to build the ship completely, kind of like Rule the Waves 2 but 3D. I keep building ships but ending up disappointed by a couple of things. For example I really wish I could build the command towers myself, there are a ton of places for casemate guns I don't want or that I wish didn't exist and places I WISH I could put them, I cant. I got this thinking I could lego together ships, Instead I get stuck with a Hull and I can extend or shorten it. That's it. Hell, on the heavy cruiser hull, the super cool side turret rings I usually can't even effectively use because the only towers available for it get in the way of atleast one set of them. Most ships I build also end up being a tad bit of an eyesore. The game is fun, don't get me wrong, but at the moment its fun in the sense, yeah I don't mind spending 30min - 1hour on this every so often, rather than what it could be, which is a game I get lost in for hours.
  25. 1st Pic. 2nd Pic Those are 2 different ports. Both have different reward. The First mission is a fake mission wasting player time and in my opinion shouldnt even be generated like this by the game and given out as mission. What gouverneur would get such a fleet to protect such an unimportant port? But what if.... ...the composition of the defending fleet would actual scale with the payout as well? This way such timewasting missions could actual become a nice spontaneous evening activity. Maybe even restrict the max rate a player can bring to such a mission.
  • Create New...