Upcoming Alpha-3 News! (OLD)

[Captain_Sir_Loughton_Peto]

This is a great game. Better that any feature is delayed rather than rushed.

[sarrumac]

I would like to be able to move the machines in order to move the center of mass too.

[Bry7x7x7]

22 hours ago, Finnwolf88 said:

I think that would take away from the immersion of the game. Every nations didnt know what every other nations guns / shells could do. Hell they didnt even have all the info for their own creations. The game takes place long before computer simulations were a thing and IMHO there needs to be a certain level of trial and error. 

As true as it may be, as the companies did it was still tested, hence where we got the numbers ourselves. As seen here:

If you really must, we can have it where you have an option when starting a game to only use shells from guns only you can make and maybe nations you have an alliance/tech sharing agreement with.

Or, if you really must, you could turn it off/ignore it for a more blind entry

[ThatZenoGuy]

On 11/13/2019 at 1:12 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Yuge Patchnote of Goodness

If I can offer a suggestion, the citadel protection schemes should do something rather interesting.

As armor layouts got more advanced, LESS of the ship was protected, granted said protection was much thicker and stronger.

A ship without citadel tech ingame would have 100% of its area covered in armor...But obviously that'd weigh a lot, therefore it'd have to be very thin, enemy shells would pen it easily but it would also protect against HE decently.

On the opposite side, a 'maxxed out' citadel tech would allow thicknesses of armor upwards of 16 inches, hugely thicker than any feesible non-citadel ship. Granted the citadel would only protect from the first turret to the last (The more space between turrets the more armor should weigh, that is logical) or for nelson styled ships, from the first turret to the end of the machinery spaces.

Techs inbtween give a bit more armor to the ends/superstructure of the ship, with turtleback giving ships an inner belt which works very well at close range.

[Steeltrap]

On 11/17/2019 at 12:56 AM, Cptbarney said:

An armour viewer like in wows would be cool. However make it customisable so you can select which plates/sections you want to have, with x amount of armour on and it should put that armour on the relevant y amount of hull plates.

 

On 11/18/2019 at 4:17 AM, Bry7x7x7 said:

Maybe go a step further and take the Warthunder tank armor viewer where you can see the penetration values from different types of shot and angles

 

On 11/18/2019 at 10:17 AM, Skeksis said:

WOWS and War Thunder armour viewers adds to the immersion, not take it away. These tools, functions and features expands the scope of these games and it would do the same for UA:D. It would give rise to intelligent design rather than dumb fumbling a design by trial and error. The campaign might not be so forgiving if you waste resources on trial and error either.  

I created a thread that included a request for greater information with respects to the in-game consequences of how much armour we were choosing to put in the various locations.

Sadly for me, nobody replied, lol, although I suppose people thought there was no need to split from the other place I'd initially posted an earlier version.

It starts with a TL;DR:

All in all I think the appearance of crazy randomness does not do the game justice and the devs might well do themselves and the players a service by taking the time to be reasonably explicit about how things ought to work. We can provide better feedback if the devs let us know what they regard as things working as they intend, rather than us listing what we think seems peculiar but not being sure one way or another.

I think the comments you're all making about the armour layout and viewer etc are variations on the same theme, namely we're guessing v having concise info. It's really stark when you combine it with the whole question of how does AP v HE pen work, and why do we see monster HE damage up to and including flooding when previous hits on the identical target in the identical location and angle using AP bounced off or did a minimal damage partial pen. That on the face of it makes no sense at all.

This absence of specific knowledge, understanding consequences and what ought to work and why, is frustrating to us in many ways, true.

It's arguably more important from the perspective of an Alpha test, however, as it means we can't be sure what is an unexpected/potential error result v working as it should.

That limits our ability to give informed, specific feedback on what is a core mechanic of the greatest possible importance. 

First impressions count a lot, and a game claiming to offer a far more 'realistic' approach to big gun naval combat simulation, not to mention surrounding tech, logistical, resource and budgetary mechanics to add to that realism, might not want to be seen as a "fire HE all the time, it's super effective" sim like some other game we might mention, lol.

Cheers

Edited November 19, 2019 by Steeltrap

[Illya von Einzbern]

Night fights when
YASEEEEN!!

I am quite sure that in alpha 5 or 4 we can test out some parts of campaign and skills for the crews.
Not much longer for that part hype hype hype \^v^/
 
Alpha 4 could contain night fights with illumination shells and searchlights OwO}}}
Some more ship hulls and more variations for barbets and perhaps free placement of such (please do give please).

Also citadel is mechs are coming!? Really interested in this.
Some more information of gun performance before entering the battle would be nice like.
Pen values of different AP shells and blasting charges. HE pen values and the effects of blasting charges.
Option to choose shell filling? Incendiary AP, APHE, HES, APC, APWPHE (armor piercing white phosphorous high explosive) and so on... (screw geneva convictions ( ^w^)/|]). ahemm any ways...

Crew and it's affect? Alpha 4 or 5?? that needs to be tested at some point and modifiable admiral faces if there are any. I want Satania to lead the ship with APWPHE rounds and just watch the ships... cook

She did nothing wrong by using those shells right
 

More dmg decals and visual candies? YES PLEAS it's food for eyes.
Some sound effects for fire alarms would be nice additional touch to ships.
Like if there is a fire in ship the alarm would be heard and if the ship sinks additional sound ques would be played out. While at it crew disembark and life boats when O_O!?

 

Lastly no bully CV and other variations.
They did nothing wrong to be bullied

please make them even if they are really hard and complex (honest beg and request)

That's all from me ^^

 

(sorry for all the satania pics... just watched the show Gabriel dropout)

[monbvol]

I would second the motion that we need a clearer idea of what the intended mechanics are to be.

To build on that I would highly recommend priority be giving to developing what is essentially a firing range mission/mode.

Ideally this would allow us to test various gun parameters against statically generated targets instead of randomly generated targets.  Environment variables being statically ideal would be good too.  If we could also be given the ability to determine the number and design the targets ourselves, including the ability to have multiple individual designs in the same mission/mode that would be good too.

As an example: set up four DDs as targets, one with no armor, one with 0.5"(12.7mm) armor everywhere, one with 1"(25.4mm), and one with 1.5"(38.1mm)

Obviously that is just an example of one possible setup for targets and there should be other possible setups, especially for testing of larger guns.

Not sure what would be the easiest way to implement control over the variables of citadel and armor types but those would be important too.

Perhaps a way to repeat the ships at certain ranges so we can see the effects of range too.

Ultimately the idea would be to reduce/control as many variables as possible so we could give clearer feedback on the guns/shells vs armor model.

[Cairo1]

Perhaps This is a case of looking for Realism in the wrong places, but i do not mind the randomness at all. How would one nation gather the needed information on the armor layout of an enemy? in addition to the armor lay out, then you have the armor theory, what I am saying is what nation just published weather they have an inclined belt, or how thick it is, or how high or low to the waterline it sits. I can see the benefit of trying to gather expectation on your own ships then, but how will you know what the weight of an enemy shell is, its amount of explosive filler, how could you estimate the actual penetration even if you use your own guns? In reality old ships were used for target practice, but also in the early treaty era modern ships became target practice and demonstrators of theory. you just don't know until you try is what i am saying.

I would rather Development time be dedicated to additional game play features, more CG models, improvements to already existing systems. New features like night battles, which i second, I would really like to see search lights cut through the darkness.

Let our destroyers act like real ladies before they die in hell fire.

[Cptbarney]

I think a good rule of thumb to follow would be, Bug fixes>improving existing content>Add smoll content>Add Large content>Miscellanous.

That would be fine too be honest. So alpha 3 will see the arrival of new ship hulls and im guessing missions along with secondaries, tetaries, quadaries etc. getting buffs. (noice)

And other goodies. Think if we could have new fuses, bursting fillers/chemicals/charges along with islands, houses, buildings and bases would be nice as well to add to aesthetics. (good way to test other mechanics as well). Maybe cool effects regarding bits of metal and wood flying off if ships are hit hard enough? Obviously that would take awhile to simulate and i don't expect too see anything like that and if at all until alpha 7 or 8 but would be a cool feature to have as well.

Lots of vereh gud ideas here not just from me but from everyone else too.

 

'w'

[monbvol]

I will agree with the idea it would be nice even if it was for the player's ships only to know where is armored and to what degree that such a feature is still a would be nice versus must have feature.

It would be an interesting feature to possibly eventually add to the campaign that your intelligence agents steal the official blueprints/build information for enemy ships or even their gun tests but again that is something that can wait.

Scope creep is something that does need to be kept in check too, especially so with as small as a development team is involved in this game as there is.

[Steeltrap]

15 hours ago, monbvol said:

I will agree with the idea it would be nice even if it was for the player's ships only to know where is armored and to what degree that such a feature is still a would be nice versus must have feature.

It would be an interesting feature to possibly eventually add to the campaign that your intelligence agents steal the official blueprints/build information for enemy ships or even their gun tests but again that is something that can wait.

Scope creep is something that does need to be kept in check too, especially so with as small as a development team is involved in this game as there is.

Knowing where armour is doesn't really matter much unless we also know how the penetration mechanics work.

My biggest issues with the whole armour question is seeing results that the values suggest shouldn't happen. That means one or more of a number of things might be true:

- there's a bug such that the game isn't putting the correct armour in all places that it should, or isn't applying the 'quality' modifier on all of them, or a combination of those.

- there's a bug with how it is calculating penetration for AP or HE or both for one or more armour locations and at different ranges.

- certain armour zones can be hit from ranges and angles we might think aren't possible.

- certain armour zones don't use the penetration values we think they are (deck armour I'm looking at you in particular).

That's just off the top of my head.

I for one would like to understand what can penetrate the deck if  I armour it to 'x' thickness with 'y' multiplier, because right now I've seen results that seem like complete BS. Trouble is I don't know if that's because it is in fact not working properly or it's because how the system works is not how the information suggests it does.

Why, for example, have a pen value listed for deck armour at different ranges for guns if HE can go through it like butter anyway? That strikes me as entirely misleading, and also rather BS in many cases.

But I don't know because to the best of my knowledge we're in the dark, and I'm no fan of keeping players ignorant if for no other reason than it gives rise to the possibility of thinking the game is rubbish when in fact it's just that the players don't understand correctly how something works.

Understanding how your armour works against your enemies' different guns and shells at different ranges is one of THE most vital aspect of designing a dreadnought. The so-called "immunity zones" weren't just pulled out of thin air, although that doesn't mean they necessarily were accurate as you rarely had complete info about your enemies. Leaving us guessing about it is, I think, a very bad idea.

Cheers

 

[RedParadize]

So, Upcoming Alpha-3 News? In the sense that the news will be upcoming? Just saying because it have been almost two weeks and the description looks like a patch note. Its confusing.

[Cptbarney]

39 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

So, Upcoming Alpha-3 News? In the sense that the news will be upcoming? Just saying because it have been almost two weeks and the description looks like a patch note. Its confusing.

Im assuming it's next week they did say there other things gonna be added in, but yeah been awhile now.

Interested to see what the next patch will be about in full.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hello all,

Just wanted to give you a small update on our current progress of work. We have added many more extra improvements than those already announced. The update is planned to finish next week and enter the testing phase. Once we realize the patch is stable, we will provide it for all of you.

We will give more information as soon as we are sure everything is working with the needed quality. But here is something I personally wanted to share with you.

There have been many requests about designer flexibility, especially for the Yamato Hull. You wanted to add guns with more freedom and produce designs such as the HMS Nelson. Well here it is what you can produce in the upcoming update:

These are a few examples of what the "mind" of Auto-Design can create and surely you can do even better than that.

We are eager to release this patch and enjoy it together!

Have a good weekend everyone!

[Jetu]

23 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

 

Nice.

Reminds me of:


Very nice, and thanks for making it possible asap.

[Cptbarney]

Omg, Omg, Omg. I was right and im bloody estatic.

Am vereh happeh barney!

'w'

[Joryl]

Yaaay!

[Tousansons]

I'm curious to see how weight will be balanced with an all forward armament ship depending on its hull and caliber.

It sure look pretty damn sexy though.

[monbvol]

On 11/21/2019 at 1:31 AM, Steeltrap said:

Knowing where armour is doesn't really matter much unless we also know how the penetration mechanics work.

My biggest issues with the whole armour question is seeing results that the values suggest shouldn't happen. That means one or more of a number of things might be true:

- there's a bug such that the game isn't putting the correct armour in all places that it should, or isn't applying the 'quality' modifier on all of them, or a combination of those.

- there's a bug with how it is calculating penetration for AP or HE or both for one or more armour locations and at different ranges.

- certain armour zones can be hit from ranges and angles we might think aren't possible.

- certain armour zones don't use the penetration values we think they are (deck armour I'm looking at you in particular).

That's just off the top of my head.

I for one would like to understand what can penetrate the deck if  I armour it to 'x' thickness with 'y' multiplier, because right now I've seen results that seem like complete BS. Trouble is I don't know if that's because it is in fact not working properly or it's because how the system works is not how the information suggests it does.

Why, for example, have a pen value listed for deck armour at different ranges for guns if HE can go through it like butter anyway? That strikes me as entirely misleading, and also rather BS in many cases.

But I don't know because to the best of my knowledge we're in the dark, and I'm no fan of keeping players ignorant if for no other reason than it gives rise to the possibility of thinking the game is rubbish when in fact it's just that the players don't understand correctly how something works.

Understanding how your armour works against your enemies' different guns and shells at different ranges is one of THE most vital aspect of designing a dreadnought. The so-called "immunity zones" weren't just pulled out of thin air, although that doesn't mean they necessarily were accurate as you rarely had complete info about your enemies. Leaving us guessing about it is, I think, a very bad idea.

Cheers

 

Which is why I think an armor viewer would be nice but isn't critical at this stage.

It is certainly more important we do have ways of actually testing the mechanics, which does mean control over variables would be good.

[Diabolic_Wave]

Well done to our design team! Thanks as always for improving your game constantly! Definitely not regretting my pre-order if it's funding such good work.

[Absolute0CA]

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello all,

YES!!!!! YES!!!! YES!!!! GLAD TO SEE THESE IMPROVEMENTS!!!! YAY!!!!

[Steeltrap]

5 hours ago, Diabolic_Wave said:

Well done to our design team! Thanks as always for improving your game constantly! Definitely not regretting my pre-order if it's funding such good work.

This covers my own feelings so well I'm just going to steal quote it.

😀

Edited November 23, 2019 by Steeltrap

[Steeltrap]

7 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello all,

We will give more information as soon as we are sure everything is working with the needed quality. But here is something I personally wanted to share with you.

 Well here it is what you can produce in the upcoming update:

These are a few examples of what the "mind" of Auto-Design can create and surely you can do even better than that.

We are eager to release this patch and enjoy it together!

Looks like Yamato and Nelson did some "fraternising" and produced a disturbingly ugly offspring, LOL. Plus that's a LOT of secondary guns.

😲

Edited November 23, 2019 by Steeltrap

[Steeltrap]

5 hours ago, monbvol said:

Which is why I think an armor viewer would be nice but isn't critical at this stage.

It is certainly more important we do have ways of actually testing the mechanics, which does mean control over variables would be good.

Oh yes, I wasn't meaning an armour viewer wouldn't be valuable.

It's just incomplete if we don't also understand the penetration mechanics for AP and HE.

Cheers

[nimbalo500]

It would appear as if we will be able to put secondary guns closer to each other, very nice.