Planning of next updates

[Nick Thomadis]

Happy New Year everybody!
The next update "Alpha 4" is in progress.
Among all the new improvements we are going to offer, there will be new hull designs.
Here is a new ship that you will soon be able to build.
Do you recognize which is it?

Note: Ship visuals are not final and the design is just one variant of the many possible.

Meanwhile, we need your help in understanding what is absolutely important to develop for the game, besides the campaign. Please mention anything you consider critical - more important than campaign - that would make you much happier when playing Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts.
 

[Dante S. Lancaster]

Hi there. I really hope the new Alpha 4 will fix the issue of some 3D model overlapping, especially on the secondary guns model when added onto the bridge. The largest hull of the super battleship has same issue with the the dock too. Please fix. Thank you.

[WelshZeCorgi]

I want to say that kind of looks like the bismarck, but I'm no ship expert. 

Could something be done about the draw distance? At extreme ranges, enemy ships don't appear on screen and you have to scroll in the direction your turrets are facing before they pop up and are clickable. 

[RAMJB]

That's HMS Hood. And by Jove, she looks gorgeous.

Edited January 6, 2020 by RAMJB

[akd]

Off the top of my head:

1. Spotting and targeting should be relative, but there should also be less tower-dependent differences in visibility, at least for broad classes of ships.

2. Better representation of differences and evolution in armor schemes.

3. Accuracy should update after shots arrive at target (with additional time for observation and adjustment), not when guns fire.

4. Relative range and bearing rates should be a more dominant factor in accuracy; absolute target size and speed less.

5. Less abstract treatment of smoke and radar.

6. More freedom for placement of towers, barbettes and funnels, balanced by effects of engine placement, citadel length and topweight factor.

7. I think some consideration needs to be given to making hulls and towers more generic and less deterministic.  For example, with the new Italian heavy cruiser hull, 6 empty gun positions are included along the side of the hull by default.  Not placing guns centered in these positions looks strange, so you are funneled into a much more limited set of choices for configurations.  Same with new US BB hull and several new towers.  Perhaps instead of showing these elements in 3D by default, there could instead be mounting points that cause some elements to only appear when a gun / torpedo launcher is mounted there?  The same might be considered for casemate positions, although these appear less strange when empty.

Edited January 7, 2020 by akd

[Bluishdoor76]

In my honest opinion, allowing more creative freedom with the hulls would be the biggest change. I love the game but hardly every return to it because I get tired of ending with the same designs because I cant freely place most parts aside from main guns and secondaries. Other then that the game is amazing and cant wait to finally see some Italian and French hulls and turrets.

 

Also, and idk if this fits here but, after looking at the other ultimate admiral game I was wondering. Will Dreadnoughts have land battles in a similar vein to age of sail? Of course the time period Dreadnoughts takes place would mean ground combat would be far more complex to what Age of Sail had to deal with so I am very curious as to what course you will take.

Edited January 6, 2020 by Bluishdoor76

[Koogus]

One thing I hope is added is being able to freely place stuff like towers or barbettes anywhere on a hull

Edited January 6, 2020 by Koogus
Spelling

[Teckelmaster]

She looks great!

Mighty as should be.

1. I would love the option for the enemies not to run away. Z-flag style. For custom battles.

2. Hull designs. As many as possible. 

3. More liberty in placing of turrets etc on those hulls. 

4. Once win condition is hit in naval academy, the option to keep playing, to wipe them out. As for example in civ vi. 
 

Those i would like before campaign, anything else after.

Thanks for your great work!

[HusariuS]

Ahhhh nice, it's time for magazine explosions

[HusariuS]

What i would want is to have more space to place a barbette, also it would be nice if barbettes wouldn't be limited to the certain hulls.

Also i have a small suggestion that is not very important:

What about ability to choose "skin model" of the armament? 

Those new secondary guns models looks very nice, but the problem is, sometimes they really don't fit at some places.

So why not give ability to the player to change the skin from Mark 5 gun to for example Mark 1 gun while still having Mark 5 gun bonuses?

The hull above you just presented to us is great example, some of those guns are extending beyond superstructure.

Edited January 6, 2020 by HusariuS

[ThePlanner]

Hello everyone,

I bought the game over the holidays and have thoroughly enjoyed learning the ropes and having quite a bit of success progressing through the various training missions. Looking forward to the next alpha patch and thank you for reaching out for input from players on our opinion of the most important feature(s), excluding the campaign, for the forthcoming update. Here are my thoughts, by category:

Highest priority (technical) - higher frame rates/graphic optimization.

Highest priority (graphical) - ships seem to sit too low in the water (vessels frequently ship water over the bow and particularly the stern to such a degree that I often think they are foundering and about to sink).

Highest priority (user interface) - ability to lock or fix the display of aiming statistics for currently targeted vessel. Currently one needs to hover over the target to see this information and the rest of the time it is showing stats for wherever the cursor currently sits (typically a vacant area of ocean near the vessel).

Highest priority (general quality of life) [tie]: (a) display funnel capacity higher on the shipbuilding list of stats, so one doesn't have to scroll all the way down to the bottom; and, (b) have 'ctrl' stay on permanently to give users the fine-grain control over placement at all times, or perhaps make it a toggle vs on-demand with a held key-stroke.

Highest priority (shipyard) - greater control for placement of barbettes, super structure, funnels, and secondary turrets (such as on sufficiently large areas of the super structure).

Highest priority (custom battles) - ability to add merchant ships, set up deployment patterns (e.g. convey with escorts), set time of day, sea state, visibility, ammunition loads or damage, AI disposition (aggressive, totally avoid battle, fight then flee, etc.). Basically, more control about set-up and battle structure.
 

I hope that this is of some use. Please, keep up the great work!

Edited January 6, 2020 by ThePlanner
Additional thoughts.

[Hellstrike]

My biggest gripe with right now is that almost always, there is some "best design" and building anything else would be suboptimal. There should be at least two or three possible variations with the same or similar stats so that you actually have a some variety when building a ship. A positive example would be "Design a Dreadnought", where you can build good ships which looks differently and allows several strong builds. And if not in hulls, at least superstructures should offer some visual choices so that it does not feel as if you are building the same ship again and again.

Light Cruisers need some love as well. There was a lot of diversity in their designs, ranging from very small ships like the HMS Arethusa (1934) up to beasts like the USS Fargo and Mogami classes (as built). The early ones are pretty good, but once we get to the 1910s, things start to look bleak. It is not possible to build an effective with a centerline armament, not even a C- or D-Class, nevermind something with double or triple turrets.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Hellstrike
Spelling

[halfmanhalfsquidman]

I'd love to see a mini-map or some other map function that would give me a overview of the battle, perhaps issue steering commands from there as well. I often find I lose track of ships when trying to manage multiple divisions.

[Benjamin Magnus]

There is one bug Id love to see fixed that Ive gotten to appear pretty regularly when I stream then game. Well, a few bugs. One being guns getting stuck in perpetual ladder shooting, never getting their target locked on. The other being turrets only firing one shell.

[WelshZeCorgi]

HE shells might need some adjustment. It might be too effective in its current state. I'm not a dreadnought combat expert so don't take my word for it, but I am seeing that HE can turn well-armored ships to turn into ersatz bonfires with a few lucky rolls. It's simply too easy for a CL or a DD to defeat a BB by setting it on fire with HE rounds. I think others have posted this complaint as well.     

[arkhangelsk]

I think that a lot of people have talked about their "happiness" with the hotfix's accuracy, penetration and damage alterations. I shall assume that I will see something a lot more like the pre-hotfix state in Alpha 4. Also,

2 hours ago, Benjamin Magnus said:

There is one bug Id love to see fixed that Ive gotten to appear pretty regularly when I stream then game. Well, a few bugs. One being guns getting stuck in perpetual ladder shooting, never getting their target locked on. The other being turrets only firing one shell.

I don't remember this happening to me too much, but yes all guns should fire, or we should be given an intelligent reason why they are not. Otherwise...

Really I have to say that I can think of nothing that should take priority over getting at least a draft version of the campaign out, and having skimmed through the posts so far, I honestly think that nothing in them should have higher priority.

I don't disagree with them per se, but a lot of them are eye-candy fixes, or small changes with the procedure (yes, technically it's true the accuracy should update when the shots hit ... on the other hand, we are one man commanding a fleet, we arguably need a little lead time to think, so we don't keep pausing the game). On the more substantive matters, we all desperately need to see what happens when real players have to make their ships last more than one battle, or take into account cost constraints.

[Steeltrap]

6 hours ago, HusariuS said:

Ahhhh nice, it's time for magazine explosions

There aren't enough already? You must be playing a different version.

😁  😎

[Alekius]

Modular hull design so we're not locked into the design benefits and flaws of historical ships.  I don't mind if the AI can't use them, as long as the player can design the same ships as the AI with the pieces provided.

Edited January 7, 2020 by Alekius

[FinnishJager]

If I have to give a non-campaign answer, it's going to have to be a throw back to the video that gave so many of us interest in the game in the first place. Modular parts and pieces that give players freedom to design.

Also hull mounted torpedo tubes like the various Japanese cruisers from the 30s and 40s.

[Steeltrap]

On 1/7/2020 at 7:25 AM, akd said:

Off the top of my head:

1. Spotting and targeting should be relative, but there should also be less tower-dependent differences in visibility, at least for broad classes of ships.

2. Better representation of differences and evolution in armor schemes.

3. Accuracy should update after shots arrive at target (with additional time for observation and adjustment), not when guns fire.

4. Relative range and bearing rates should be a more dominant factor in accuracy; absolute target size and speed less.

5. Less abstract treatment of smoke and radar.

6. More freedom for placement of towers, barbettes and funnels, balanced by effects of engine placement, citadel length and topweight factor.

7. I think some consideration needs to be given to making hulls and towers more generic and less deterministic.  For example, with the new Italian heavy cruiser hull, 6 empty gun positions are included along the side of the hull by default.  Not placing guns centered in these positions looks strange, so you are funneled into a much more limited set of choices for configurations.  Same with new US BB hull and several new towers.  Perhaps instead of showing these elements in 3D by default, there could instead be mounting points that cause some elements to only appear when a gun / torpedo launcher is mounted there?  The same might be considered for casemate positions, although these appear less strange when empty.

This is a good list of specifics, and I highlighted the ones I particularly like.

My own?

Overriding point: Historical Fidelity. Make the game numbers and mechanics present the most accurate portrayal of the weapons and systems etc through the period the game covers. By all means tweak for playability and fun, but NOT to the point it makes hollow any claims to historical accuracy.

1. Armour and damage models. These are HUGELY important. To be blunt, it's great and necessary to get the campaign rolling, but the best campaign in the world isn't going to help if early 1900s era CAs keep blowing up from a 4" bow belt extended penetrations as they do now, for example. Same goes for plunging fire HE v AP. And so on. Not that you and your colleagues don't know this, but you asked what we thought was vital.

2. Address issues of penetration/accuracy. We all saw the huge jumps following the hotfix to v3. We really need to understand where you're intending to land with this. I am finding it hard to relate when I see penetration numbers in game that I know are frankly nonsensical. If they're being done to adjust to a lower base armour level standard (i.e. they reflect penetration of raw iron armour plate), personally I'd prefer they be based on later era numbers many of us know even if that means they appear very low for early tech guns. As an aside, the performance of shells in the battle of Jutland showed the 13.5", and perhaps even the 15" from the Queen Elizabeth class, couldn't reliably pen 9" of armour at 10,000 yards/9.1km, so those numbers being lower that people might expect is fine in my book because it would be accurate. 

3. Ability to set different targets for primary and secondary batteries. Also separate ammo control for both. The first was slated for the last one and didn't make it. It's CRITICAL at the tactical level. The ammo choice is important, too, as the AI when set to 'Auto' ammo selection tends to fire AP from secondaries at targets where HE would be by far the better choice due to angling or base armour thickness. In fact the AI's ammo choice ideally would reflect the updating info available from the penetration popup. If I can see the pen/ricochet values mean HE is the better choice, the AI ought to be able to do so.

4. Some means of controlling or STOPPING ENTIRELY the AI changing target selections from what I might want. Nice to have, not crucial, but not unimportant, either.

5. Can you please add the part of the Penetration Details popup that allows us to view our own ships from an enemy's perspective? I know it didn't make it in, and expect you plan to do so, but thought I'd mention it anyway.

On a technical note: I use an NVidia GeForce GTX 1060 6GB graphics card and I've noticed 'good' graphics settings will cause it to run very hot, even with my custom fan profile. Am wondering about the optimisation of the game, multi-threading and the like. I play other games that don't seem to generate the same heat etc.

[Anyone else care to comment on the rigs and any observations about performance, heat and the like?]

Keep up the great work and communications.

Cheers

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2020 by Steeltrap
1. Added point 5; 2. Added seperate ammo selection to point 3

[Tousansons]

- Better formation pathfinding. This is especially important in larger battle, micromanaging bad unit pathing is the bane of RTS's. Right now it's usually a terrible idea to cross the path of a battleship with even a nimble destroyer. I also already made a statement about the automatic fall back feature too. This need to be adressed even before the campaign.

- Better performances in larger battles OR a better way to tweak graphical parameters. Naval academy missions runs pretty well, but it's easy to turn the game into a slideshow with custom battles. This is a common issue with game made on unity, the more assets on the area (not necessarily on screen), the more it will choke.

- Crew members, how they will affect battle performances of a ship and how they will react when it's under pressure. "If" the campaign have some kind of experience model for ships and crew, I think it's important to add them before hand, allowing the player to test different quality in custom battles.

On a final note: In my opinion all values, be it guns, armor, morale or whatever should not be a priority as long as all of the gameplay elements are added. I fail to see the point of changing numbers in a part of the damage model or accuracy when (for exemple) the aforementioned crew is not even present on board. Working on balance (or historical accuracy in this case) in an incomplete game feels a bit wrong and a waste of time. Tweaking them to allow the player to test it properly is a different beast, of course.

 

[Tycondero]

The ability to not mount casemate guns and still look visually pleasing (no empty casemate gunports).

The AI in custom battles not running away preventing you from finishing the battle. Alternatively, if two fleets are beyond a certain range the custom battle should end with the amount of tonnage sunk determining the victor.

Rebalance the explosive types in order to make each of them serve a clearer role or become obsolete.

Have a battle result screen at the end of a custom battle.

Allowing us to save designs to be reused or even used by the AI in other battles.

[arkhangelsk]

44 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

Tweaking them to allow the player to test it properly is a different beast, of course.

If you mean something as extreme as this hotfix, I suggest that they be clear about this from the start. Don't call it a "hotfix" because they are supposed to make things better overall. Call it a "controlled experimental patch" and tell us what part they want tested, and assure us in advance (not after our screams of horror) that this is not meant to be an improvement. We'll make as many test runs as we can.

Oh, and I just remembered one really easy thing they can do for us - Release the lock on the Hydrophone gear for CA, BC and BBs. On the realism front, real battleships like Bismarck are known to have hydrophone gear. I suppose the game reason is to make us build destroyers and make a combined arms team ... but you also have to remember the Naval Academy missions that limit us to one ship. The enemy has torpedoes. And we are deprived of torpedo warning gear (which is what all the hydrophone/sonar gear is in the absence of submarines). Besides, the goal is to make us build or not build destroyers due to their own realistic merits or lack thereof, not because it is the only way to get hydrophones.

Maybe they can keep those with the word "Sonar" on it to the DDs and CLs, but give us the ones labeled "Hydrophones"?

[Doomed]

I'd like to see more formation commands. So for example allowing all ships to turn together rather than just following one another.

[Illya von Einzbern]

Some more cruiser hull variations and BB hull variations would be lovely.
Kongou, Rodney, Nelson, Bismark, Littorio, Gulio Cesare, Prince Eugen, Takao, Mogami, Cleaveland, Atlanta, Aganao, Izuzu, London, Zara, Fuso (the tall coning tower) Edinburg, Colorado, North carolina and Graf spee.
Plenty of hulls to add and plenty of variations for us to create ^^
Free positioning of imposed turret placements would be really hand for secondaries as well for main guns. At the moment the limited amount and few spots is some what annoying.
Please give bit more freedom there.

Other than that.
Thanks for the new patch and for making entertaining game