Planning of next updates

[Gundrium]

I know this might be a bit late, but could there possibly be modifications to turret models? Such as choosing a two or one gun turret being smaller than the three gun option. 

 

This isn't because I want to slap big guns on small ships, StopAskingQuestionsShutUp.

[BlaineS99]

Is there going to be mod support for this game in the future?

[Ink]

5 hours ago, BlaineS99 said:

Is there going to be mod support for this game in the future?

Greetings, we must first finish the game perfectly and after that we can consider any extra features such as modding/Steam workshop.
At the moment we only focus on delivering all the main features of the game

[DerRichtigeArzt]

2 hours ago, Ink said:

Greetings, we must first finish the game perfectly and after that we can consider any extra features such as modding/Steam workshop.
At the moment we only focus on delivering all the main features of the game. 

Can you tell us anything about alpha 6(release date features maybe screens hots) or is it not in a state where you can show us anything? 

[Aceituna]

3 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

Can you tell us anything about alpha 6(release date features maybe screens hots) or is it not in a state where you can show us anything? 

I share your interest in new information about development and I would sure be thankful for info about Alpha 6 like you.

But I own this game since alpha 2 and I learned something since that time: The devs will let us know when they want no when we want.

As admin posted yesterday: Hold on.

[Cptbarney]

6 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

I share your interest in new information about development and I would sure be thankful for info about Alpha 6 like you.

But I own this game since alpha 2 and I learned something since that time: The devs will let us know when they want no when we want.

As admin posted yesterday: Hold on.

We will probs get news of it late next week i reckon, or the week after. Probs won't see the actual update till like june or july.

[Bluishdoor76]

I really need my fix of new shit to do, quarantine is really starting to test my ability to play the same shit over and over again lol

[Cptbarney]

26 minutes ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

I really need my fix of new shit to do, quarantine is really starting to test my ability to play the same shit over and over again lol

Im hoping we get something early next week (ill be genuinely surprised if it drops this week like tommorrow). But yeah i had no internet for 2 days, bored out of my bloody head (plus could only do limited uni work since i need muh tutorials lol).

[Latur Husky]

I also hope that next patch will drop in soon, would be nice to see what’s cooking... Hype is real boys xD

[MegaManX821]

I'd like to see a more immersive UI with better control of the ships during combat.

[Cdodders]

I can't wait for Carrier so i can cover my ships in AA

[Bluestrategist]

On 5/19/2020 at 9:04 PM, Cdodders said:

I can't wait for Carrier so i can cover my ships in AA

Carriers never work in these games - look at the nonsense of WOWS. Realistically, striking at the enemy from perhaps a hundred miles away or more won't work for the CV or the target (all you can do is shoot down some planes and hope to survive.) I respectfully suggest that CVs offer a recon/intel boost and that any air attacks take place on the campaign map.

[Aceituna]

41 minutes ago, Bluestrategist said:

Carriers never work in these games - look at the nonsense of WOWS. Realistically, striking at the enemy from perhaps a hundred miles away or more won't work for the CV or the target (all you can do is shoot down some planes and hope to survive.) I respectfully suggest that CVs offer a recon/intel boost and that any air attacks take place on the campaign map.

I read quite a few books about carriers And planes usage against naval targets And i can Tell you that problem Is not that cv's Are op. Problem Is that people just don't understant that they just have to be OP. If you would read something about cv's you would Discover that cv's in wows Are actually extremely useless compared to reality.

Carriers being ,,op'' Is the Reason why battleships aren't used in combat anymore.

Edited May 30, 2020 by Aceituna

[Marshall99]

52 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

I read quite a few books about carriers And planes usage against naval targets And i can Tell you that problem Is not that cv's Are op. Problem Is that people just don't understant that they just have to be OP. If you would read something about cv's you would Discover that cv's in wows Are actually extremely useless compared to reality.

Carriers being ,,op'' Is the Reason why battleships aren't used in combat anymore.

I agree with you.

Battleship: exist

CV: I am about to end this ships whole career.

 

So in my opinion, CV's had a huge role in naval battles. But in this game the title says: Dreadnoughts. CV's can come into the game, but please make an option to disable them. Personaly I would like to fight with BBs face to face. So this way you can enjoy playing with CV's, planning new strategies, and other players (like me) can enjoy playing without CV's.

What do you guys think about this idea?

[Aceituna]

42 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

I agree with you.

Battleship: exist

CV: I am about to end this ships whole career.

 

So in my opinion, CV's had a huge role in naval battles. But in this game the title says: Dreadnoughts. CV's can come into the game, but please make an option to disable them. Personaly I would like to fight with BBs face to face. So this way you can enjoy playing with CV's, planning new strategies, and other players (like me) can enjoy playing without CV's.

What do you guys think about this idea?

Yes it would be nice to have an option for on/off carriers. Especially for players that just want to enjoy battleships (as you said:Personaly I would like to fight with BBs face to face.)

But if there are carriers later in-game I suppose it would also mean adding land-based planes and maybeeven ship catapults (which i would really like to have) so if there's an option to disable carriers, should it also mean disabling land-based planes and catapults? Maybe that it might be more ,,detailed'' like have possibility to on/of any of these things (for example: disable carriers and keep catapults and land airfields)

 

And one more thing: There was an idea in the steam discussions some time ago. That if there are carriers in-game, all people would just play normally until carriers would become available and than just spam them. So the game might become extremely easy in the later stages.

So I brought up this idea that would avoid carriers spam while remain historically accurate (kind of) that might be suitable for players that want carriers in-game and don't want it so easy: Before ww2 carriers weren't really viewed as affective as they really were (because of more ,,traditionalist'' naval officers which favored battleships. And in the game labs blog, there is written that there will be your personal prestige that will go lower or higher based on your abilities and merit.

This brought me to this idea: If you would start building carriers your prestige might drop significantly (because of these traditionalist naval officers and goverment officials) which might lead to your dismissal (as described in the blog)

Edited May 30, 2020 by Aceituna

[Marshall99]

14 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

This brought me to this idea: If you would start building carriers your prestige might drop significantly (because of these traditionalist naval officers and goverment officials) which might lead to your dismissal (as described in the blog)

I love this idea. I think this is a good balancing factor. 

As for the catapult and land-based aircrafts, an on-off option is good. Personaly I would like to have catapult planes on my ships because they are not "OP" (very limited number of aircrafts). For recon purposes they are great.

[SiWi]

Personal I think the argument that "CV'S can't be in because they make BB's obsolete" irrelevant. 

If the "holyness" of BB's supremacy would be the main factor, one could ban mines, torpedos as well since BB's can't really defend themself against them.

 

And to be honest, the idea to get dismissed because you build CV's is a bit ridiculous. if we look in the real world, everyone that could wanted to experiment with CV's and no one was fired for it...

Omitting them would leave big hole in what design warships was about after the 1930's:

given your ship good AA as well as anything else.

Right now you basically have little reason to not take the biggest 2ndarries you can get and casemates are pretty equal to other 2nd. With Planes you would get another layer on this:

is a gun "dual purpose" or not? This would give smaller guns a better chance and more purpose. The same with light cruisers. They main guns were also often dual purpose and they would get an additional role: AA escort.

If someone wants to make a "better Bismarck" shouldn't he/she also have to improves its AA, rather then give it bigger main guns? This layer is missing if planes and CV's are "banned" because people are worried that they precious BB's won't be the top dogs anymore.

 

 

As for the "how to balance it?", simply:

make it like the real world.

At the beginning, CV strike abilities were very limited and barely exist. Only in the 30s, the CV as fighting unit really came into being.

That would be roughly the last 20 years of the campaign.

In other words, investing in CV's is a high risk high reward situations, since they can become powerful later but first require alot of upfront payment. which would be missing if you have to fight earlier, before your CV#s can actually fight. I mean subs seem to work in a similar direction: useless at first but potential powerful later.

 

Its also not if BB's or other ships were helpless. There was a point in WW2 (according to Drachinifel) where without rockets, the balance between BB's and Planes almost had turned again. because radar controlled AA guns became so deadly that torpedo attacks or bombing attack from air where suicide. 

 

I mean there are instances where a BB sunk a CV. In fact Yamato, if it and its fleet used the right ammo, had chew through a whole group of escort carriers.

 

[Cptbarney]

2 hours ago, Aceituna said:

I read quite a few books about carriers And planes usage against naval targets And i can Tell you that problem Is not that cv's Are op. Problem Is that people just don't understant that they just have to be OP. If you would read something about cv's you would Discover that cv's in wows Are actually extremely useless compared to reality.

Carriers being ,,op'' Is the Reason why battleships aren't used in combat anymore.

Dunno, i think todays AA would decimate most planes nowadays, i mean its pretty bloody hard to dodge something that travels at the speed of light consistently and jets are far bigger than the drones they use considerably so.

I think a modern BB (as in a ship with more than 6 guns above 356mm's not peeps just slapping the name on anything) would fair well since most of defences can fit on the smaller ships aorund 20k tonnes imagine the same at 50-60k tonnes instead (similar to current CV's) or even 100k (if you want a heavy/super battleship).

Although if they are going to add them in a on/off option is a must.

[Aceituna]

15 minutes ago, SiWi said:

And to be honest, the idea to get dismissed because you build CV's is a bit ridiculous. if we look in the real world, everyone that could wanted to experiment with CV's and no one was fired for it...

 

Maybe I just didn't write it clear enough. I didn't really want to say that you just get fired if you build too much carriers. But it would be just another factor for prestige. Maybe (when i think about it again) it wouldn't have to directly affect your prestige. But rather make you ,,unpopular'' which would be a penalty that would affect how much prestige you loose for other events. (for example if you would be unpopular than after every battle you lose, the drop of prestige would be bigger than it would be normally.

And if you say that nobody was fired for experimenting with cv's than ok but we don't talk about experimenting with them. It would be ok if you would do this the same way it was in history (build few carriers while also building some other capital ships).

We talk about real carrier spam here which is not the same thing as experimenting with them.

In history (before ww2) most people didn't see carriers as something ,,game changing'' and it was usually meant for reconnaissance while battleships were still viewed as the strongest naval unit. So if some chief of admiralty would start to build nothing else but carriers (before they bacame considered the most important ship type) and sacrificing all funds for that (which might happen here) than i honestly think that he really might be forced to go to retirement.

It would be important to make difference between spam and reasonable building. So there might be a limit of how much % of tonnage of your fleet might consist out of carriers.

 

And also when you say that carriers became affective during 30's than this would be relevant if this game strictly followes historical events. They became affective in  30's and 40's because it's the time when they got a chance to prove themselves affective. But if there would be a war including carriers earlier they would become more affective way sooner because there would be bigger effort to improve them (both ships and planes) earlier.

[SiWi]

34 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

Maybe I just didn't write it clear enough. I didn't really want to say that you just get fired if you build too much carriers. But it would be just another factor for prestige. Maybe (when i think about it again) it wouldn't have to directly affect your prestige. But rather make you ,,unpopular'' which would be a penalty that would affect how much prestige you loose for other events. (for example if you would be unpopular than after every battle you lose, the drop of prestige would be bigger than it would be normally.

But on what bases? Technically every design is an experiment. If you build a Torpedo Battleship and it gets annihilated do you get the same penalty?

And if not, why not?

Quote

And if you say that nobody was fired for experimenting with cv's than ok but we don't talk about experimenting with them. It would be ok if you would do this the same way it was in history (build few carriers while also building some other capital ships).

We talk about real carrier spam here which is not the same thing as experimenting with them.

When I say "experimenting" I mean committing numerous hulls and alot of time and money on them. This would not happen if people seriously though they carries would ended because of it.

And what would be your definition of "spam"? To you penalize people who skip light crusier and spam heavy cruisers? Or people that "spam" BB's? Or DD's? Seriously on what bases is that "spamming CV's" a offense worthy of punishment.  

The USA didn't seem to get any for their "spam" during the war.

Quote

In history (before ww2) most people didn't see carriers as something ,,game changing'' and it was usually meant for reconnaissance while battleships were still viewed as the strongest naval unit. So if some chief of admiralty would start to build nothing else but carriers (before they became considered the most important ship type) and sacrificing all funds for that (which might happen here) than i honestly think that he really might be forced to go to retirement.

It would be important to make difference between spam and reasonable building. So there might be a limit of how much % of tonnage of your fleet might consist out of carriers.

That would be true for our "Torpedo Battleship" as well. Do you want to regulate that as well? or any other design not fitting?

Isn't the point of the game to be able to experiment?

You can build dreadnought battleship far earlier, thanks to high sight. Why not be able to experiment what happen when CV's were focus earlier? (the flip side is of course that you can take AA more seriously earlier)

As for the tonnage %:

a more reasonable solution (if awe assume a problem), thou once again I wander: do you have % rules for every category? Or do you penalize one ship category only?

And what does forcing players to build % of each category do to the game enjoyment? if a player wants to build only cruisers as a country and no BB's should the game stop him then too?

Quote

And also when you say that carriers became affective during 30's than this would be relevant if this game strictly followes historical events. They became affective in  30's and 40's because it's the time when they got a chance to prove themselves affective. But if there would be a war including carriers earlier they would become more affective way sooner because there would be bigger effort to improve them (both ships and planes) earlier.

 

Looking at the plane side of things: probably not.

Sure you can always assume some kind of technology jump, because ealier wars would force them, but looking at the real world, a 20's CV wouldn't have planes that cable of doing damage. 

There were instances were they were used but till the 30s they didn't really have the punch necessary.

 

[Aceituna]

2 hours ago, SiWi said:

But on what bases? Technically every design is an experiment. If you build a Torpedo Battleship and it gets annihilated do you get the same penalty?

And if not, why not?

Well it would make sense to get this penalty for everything besides generic desings. So there would have to be some maximus amount of certain parts (the same way there is minimus amount required) but it would probably make the game boring. And it would kind of destroy the most popular thing in this game (design your own ship).

 

2 hours ago, SiWi said:

And what would be your definition of "spam"? To you penalize people who skip light crusier and spam heavy cruisers? Or people that "spam" BB's? Or DD's? Seriously on what bases is that "spamming CV's" a offense worthy of punishment.  

The USA didn't seem to get any for their "spam" during the war.

Well I wrote about spam below this. Simply ridiculous amount of carriers compared to other capital ships. 

I think that the cv's are the only ship type that this penalty would work for. Because other ship types are just kind of self-limitating in this way. If you would build for example only battleships while you don't build any screens. It would be serious penalty because your fleet would be extremely vulnerable against enemy torpedo vessels.

So I think that only cv's need this limitation because if you build only one type of ship (besides cv's) game will not become any easier for you. But if you build only carriers you would have to build very few small vessels to keep enemy torpedo crafts in distance from carriers while everything bigger than destroyer would be destroyed by carriers planes.

And i think that building carriers the same way US did during ww2 would't be problem for two reasons: 1. During ww2 it became clear that carriers are the strongest naval unit. So it wouldn't be controversial to build a lot of them.

         

2. I think that the way they built carriers doesn't really fulfill the definition of spam. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy_in_World_War_II) scroll down a bit there is written how much vessels of each ship type were built. Altrough they built a lot of carriers. They still built bunch of other ships. 

2 hours ago, SiWi said:

That would be true for our "Torpedo Battleship" as well. Do you want to regulate that as well? or any other design not fitting?

Isn't the point of the game to be able to experiment?

You can build dreadnought battleship far earlier, thanks to high sight. Why not be able to experiment what happen when CV's were focus earlier? (the flip side is of course that you can take AA more seriously earlier)

As for the tonnage %:

a more reasonable solution (if awe assume a problem), thou once again I wander: do you have % rules for every category? Or do you penalize one ship category only?

And what does forcing players to build % of each category do to the game enjoyment? if a player wants to build only cruisers as a country and no BB's should the game stop him then too?

As I said before any other ship is kind of self-limiting and spam of any other ship type doesn't give you advantage over enemy.

As I said first: experimenting is not problem. Only spam is.

 

%- Carriers are the only ship that makes sence to limit. Because as I said before every other ship type is self-limiting in the spam question because once carriers become available there would be no reason to build any other capital ships. So half of the campaing would become Ultimate Admiral: Carriers.

 

Here is what limiting carriers (only carriers) would do for game enjoyment: Game wouldn't become utterly easy.

If the player doesn't build any battleship. Well he will have a big disadvantage in battle. So there is no need to limit him through some special mechanic because again carriers are the only ship type that is not self-limiting.

2 hours ago, SiWi said:

Looking at the plane side of things: probably not.

Sure you can always assume some kind of technology jump, because ealier wars would force them, but looking at the real world, a 20's CV wouldn't have planes that cable of doing damage. 

There were instances were they were used but till the 30s they didn't really have the punch necessary.

 

Well of course this is not sure but if there is such a war it would mean increased funding for both planes and ship research so even planes might get better way sooner.

Anyway this will be simulated in campaing. Because if war breaks out, navy will receive more funds and if we also give priority to carrier and naval planes reseach they will get better earlier than they really did.

 

Edited May 30, 2020 by Aceituna

[ArtifaX]

In my opinion, if you cover the ages from 1920s to 1940s without planes - its a big deviation from historic events. I know its hard to implement correctly, but the start can be with catapult launching planes and some limited AA (without actual CVs) going to proper carriers later (after the game is out for a while). Another point to include it later is it would just destroy the balance player are used to, bringing more replay-ability to the game.

As for balancing them out or punishing for spam, i think the opponents in campaign should adjust their building program in response to the player in some way. If they see carrier spam - invest in AA tech and AA escort ships which given sufficient funding would decimate any aerial threat rendering carriers useless (which kinda what happened in real life as well). So if player decides to go all-in on CVs, there would be just a limited time frame for success until opponents catch up and counter.

And for land based aviation. Just have some squadrons available for a 1 time use from the beginning of the battle. This should not be too hard to implement and model (distance from land, numbers and types of planes within range are the only things to be considered.)

[Tousansons]

7 hours ago, Aceituna said:

Carriers being ,,op'' Is the Reason why battleships aren't used in combat anymore.

Carriers in itself is nothing more than a moving and vulnerable airfield requiring extensive escort, good weather condition and obviously good planes. Using video-game analogy and avoiding the critical function of every other ships in a regular fleet containing a carrier is a bit unfair. Battleship are not used today because they are obsolete and add redundancy to the role other class can now perform the same way, if not better for a fraction of the maintenance cost. This doesn't mean carriers and planes didn't have a role in their obsolescence, but it is hardly the only reason.

During ww2 battleships were still used extensively by the allied forces, to hunt the remaining axis warships, but also to protect their carrier forces with their numerous (and quite efficient AA) and finally to support the landing or knock down shore installations. Let's not forget there was american BB's firing their 406mm guns and newly fitted missiles during the gulf war in 1991. In war, you stop being used when you have no role, not because some shiny new toy make things go 'BOOM' faster than you usually do.

The fleet composition and its supply train, its modernity and the competence of its admirals, finally the courage of the poor sods working their asses loading the guns or cooking in the boiler rooms. This is the true naval power.

Oh, and the lucky shot that detonate in an ammo storage.

Now UA:D:

The reason carriers are probably added as offmap assets like submarines is UA:D is probably due to the massive change of scale and range this would impose to the game. I wonder how this will work out, but as far as I'm concerned, I will continue to claim that we need a working dreadnought game before thinking about the whole new layer and complexity of air operations in a naval game.

As for their power in games. I will once again use the exemple of RTW2: 

Even if the player know that carriers are the powerful end game tool to get before missiles, he must build a significant battleship force before he can field a significant and efficient carrier group and so does the AI. Then, during all the remaining year of the campaign, even if he doesn't build anymore battleboats, he will keep a portion of this force (dwindling by the year, obviously). The game simulate pretty well the need to "impose" power with sheer tonnage until the end, battleships are perfect for the role. You can also refit them with AA guns. And if you scrap them, the other nations might laugh at you and your prestige will suffer. Because in the end, it's all about the end game score, right?

[arekP64]

5 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Dunno, i think todays AA would decimate most planes nowadays, i mean its pretty bloody hard to dodge something that travels at the speed of light consistently and jets are far bigger than the drones they use considerably so.

I think a modern BB (as in a ship with more than 6 guns above 356mm's not peeps just slapping the name on anything) would fair well since most of defences can fit on the smaller ships aorund 20k tonnes imagine the same at 50-60k tonnes instead (similar to current CV's) or even 100k (if you want a heavy/super battleship).

Current year warfare works kinda in the same as before with the exception that regular shells are a bit more useless now. CIWS a sending a ton of led against anything within range, including missiles and potentially they could even engage larger sheels, its all about detecting targets. Ships by air are primarily engaged by anti-ship missiles which are always guided by radar or sometimes they can be targeting radar source, or go to GPS/INS coordinates and at terminal phase manually controlled by the pilot who launched them with the use of TV cameras.
Essentially AA defenses got better, so the rocket did as well, if anything was rendered obsolete were conventional sheels since they have very predictable trajectory and torpedos against surface targets, on the other hand anti submarine still have they place.

CIWS is a main reason why modern anti-ship missiles are being designed to be stealth or just really fast, back in Falklands War a flight of 2 Argentinian aircrafts has launched 2 active radar missiles against British destroyer, one missed while second managed to penetrate CIWS defenses and sunk it (it stayed afloat for a week before sinking). They're also the reason why missiles are favored over shells, sometimes you can get to more extreme case like Kuznetsov where ship-borne missiles are favored over aircraft ones, that's also why Kuznetsov is Aircraft Cruiser (my second favorite ship class after Submarine Aircraft Carriers)  not a proper Aircraft Carrier.

During second world war loses suffered by carrier aircraft by Japanese were rather high, it was either 40 or 60% I can't remember, they were high lets say. and accuracy of the attack was about 30%? which as much as weird it may sound it actually led to a logical conclusion that Kamikaze attack were the most reasonable due to accuracy and amount of damage inflicted per lost pilot and aircraft, since all of the return fuel can be converted in to warhead mass.

If it was me who was implementing carriers in to the game I would make them unable or have insanely slow reload time for aircraft in battle but, by sending aircrafts against enemy fleet  be able to create battle where you have only aircrafts, or whatever you managed to synchronize attack with, against any enemy ship in that area (AI would also be able to do the same so be quick and surprising with your attacks). I wouldn't want to have a popup message saying: Oh your fleet of Light cruisers was sunk by aircraft, but a BBs which were part of the same group were not even hit once. TRUST ME I know how bizarre conclusions can auto resolve options do, you can pull of 0 casualty in battles where auto resolve says its 100% win, but it gives you like 50% casualty rate. Same thing I would do with the submarines, I loved games with submarines since they were stealth games, but with big ships instead of assassins or something, in WOWS it was one of the features I really wanted, but I quit before they added it (assuming they did). Also we cannot forget that fleet submarines existed despite having like what? only a single battle they were somewhat successful? Back in ww2, nowadays submarine is essential part of carrier escort. Also French were cheating Washington Treaty restrictions for cruisers by just building Submarine Cruisers.

Also if anyone will start complaining that aircrafts are OP just tell them to use Pom Pom guns

[Squalid Squid]

Things I'd like to see:

1) Quad barrel French BB turrets, make French navy great again.

2) Spotter Airplanes on BB,CA aft or midships, Improving detection ranges.

3) Turret Weight restrictions depending on Dead Weight, examples: single 11" on >4000MT, dual 8" on >6000MT, triple 9" on >12.000MT , dual 18" on >55.000MT etc

A 6000MT Light Ship can't mount a 500ton turret even if it has the available tonnage because of the searing forces on the hull, ships aren't made of stalinium ;)