Planning of next updates

[HusariuS]

Instead of this: 

I would like to have this for superstructures and barbettes:

 

Edit: Yes i know someone posted something similar, but that was giving us just more points to place something, this way we can place superstructures, barbettes etc. more precisely, up to millimeters.

Edited January 29, 2020 by HusariuS

[RAMJB]

23 hours ago, Siranui said:

I do not require feedback on my QA comments from other customers stating that their suggestions are more important than others and that my issues are moot. That is for he development team to decide.

I'm going off a limb here, so I'll be brief, say what I have to say, and leave it at that.

You're posting in an internet public forum. Opinions are going to be given, and in fact should be given, about what's posted - for that's the whole purpose of such a forum.

You say that "it's up for the dev team to decide what issues and suggestions are more important than others". Indeed it is.

But it's is up for us players and customers to show and tell the dev team which issues are more important than others for us as a collective. Which means that saying something you want is alright. It also means that if whatever you want others don't think is that important, them saying so is ALSO alright. The devs will them form an opinion on which is more urgent, which is less urgent, which ideas have merit, which ones do not make sense.

As such, you may or may not "require" feedback on your comments, from other customers. Either way, you should expect that feedback to come, because that's why we all are here for. If you think that just because you say something noone else should comment on it...I'm afraid you're completely mistaking both the purpose of aninternet forum, and the purpose of being a member of a game's alpha testing phase.

Edited January 29, 2020 by RAMJB

[Siranui]

1 minute ago, RAMJB said:

As such, you may or may not "require" feedback on your comments, from other customers. Either way, you should expect that feedback to come, because that's why we all are here for. If you think that just because you say something noone else should comment on it...I'm afraid you're completely mistaking both the purpose of aninternet forum, and the purpose of being a member of a game's alpha testing phase.

I am not getting into this in depth, but this is a feedback thread, not a discussion thread. Feel free to provide unsolicited feedback on other's comments, but it is exceptionally rude to simply declare that other's issues are non-issues, then table your own suggestions, and state that they 'should take priority'.

I reiterate: The build UI is not 'finished' in any manner appropriate for a game of this price bracket. It is clunky and incomplete. If you don't recognise that, then it's exceedingly fresh of you to be lecturing others on the subject of testing.

[arkhangelsk]

1 hour ago, Siranui said:

I am not getting into this in depth, but this is a feedback thread, not a discussion thread. Feel free to provide unsolicited feedback on other's comments, but it is exceptionally rude to simply declare that other's issues are non-issues, then table your own suggestions, and state that they 'should take priority'.

I reiterate: The build UI is not 'finished' in any manner appropriate for a game of this price bracket. It is clunky and incomplete. If you don't recognise that, then it's exceedingly fresh of you to be lecturing others on the subject of testing.

Ah, now I would have to comment, because such a strong gripe implies you feel this to deserve priority status, and I am really thinking all blood should be dedicated towards the campaign. For the sake of fair disclosure, I did make one independent request on this page - releasing the lock on the hydrophone gear for CA, BC and BB, on page one. Hopefully it'll take them only twenty minutes to find the code and unlock it. Now for your substantially more time consuming proposals.

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

Buttons for adding an inch of armour to a location at a time, instead of having to click 60 times to add 6".

This is plain a bad idea. There are two basic adjustments you make to the armor - coarse and fine. You know roughly how much armor you want on the battleship. Then at the last stage you just adjust the armor by increments to either use up the remaining displacement or to squeeze your ship below the displacement limit. In the former case it's more efficient to just enter the value and the latter you need the .1 button. Adding a pair of 1-inch (25mm) buttons is unjustified consumption of precious screen real estate that would increase the chance of misclicking the wrong button - this will be especially serious if the buttons are narrowed to squeeze them both in.

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• In addition to  having the sliders for displacement and speed, have little arrows at each end to add or subtract incrementally. Currently one has to click and drag 'just so' to get things right

I won't diss your buttons here because they shouldn't take up screen space, but really allowing us to just type in the displacement would be a more precise and useful capability.

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• Marks on the displacement slider which show us where the vessel will become larger. It is extremely annoying to move the slider down and for guns to be taken off without any warning when this will happen.

If after the shift you just reverse your motion and get your bigger hull back, everything will almost always return to where they should be - in fact, I don't remember a time when it did not for me. As for the marks, that's one development direction I won't object to, but there are other possibilities - such as continually lengthening hulls (thus making the marks meaningless) or splitting off the sub-hulls into their own separate hulls, each with its own resistance/stability et al values.

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• An indicator which clearly states the funnel capacity required for 100% boiler efficiency.

After you put in funnel one, you'll get the efficiency indicated and knowing where 100% is becomes mental math. Besides, 100% is not necessarily ideal. For example, the torque penalty turns from negative to positive around the 90% mark, and you may often choose to deliberately go over 100% in case one of your funnels get blown out.

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• For the UI to highlight exactly which parts are 'badly placed' in a consistent manner

I've never been unhappy about this and cannot even tell where you are unhappy about with this statement. Perhaps this is better in bug reports?

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• The UI to prevent parts being placed in a 'badly placed' manner in the first place.

Have you considered that this mechanization might not be welcome to all, and some may actually find it more jarring if they are just blocked from doing something? "Just put it down and I'll fix it by shifting later" is a mentality, you know. All you have to do is not click while the thing's red and right click if you made a mistake.

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• For it to be clearer which guns will fit where in advance, rather than a matter of experimentation and fiddling about.

Brilliant. I can see how the additional collision calculations will affect the framerate and stability of the game. Have you considered it is occasionally possible to just squeeze in the part if you don't accept the default orientation and rotate the part a bit? The predictor will find it hard to take that into account.

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• For components which allow the mounting of others (barbettes and some towers) to clearly state what can be balanced onto them, rather than being a matter of experimentation.

The biggest barbette is up to 18", the center barbette is up to 14" and the left one if you even ever get to use it is 9". As for the towers, how do you think they can tell you in advance when the answer is often not as simple as yes or no for a given caliber, but you get a few points for the 6 inch, more for the five inch, and many many points for the three inch? Is it really that painful to just click the secondary caliber and see how many mounting points are available - you might not even like some of them?

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• For there to be a button which allows the change of calibre of primary, secondary, casement batteries and torpedo tubes with a single click, instead of needing to change each one, individually.

You can already change the caliber of your torpedo tubes with a single click (in fact, you are limited to only one caliber of torpedoes). Have you considered that people often place multiple (especially secondary) calibers on their ship as they try to use up the remaining displacement? Would this hypothetical button click change all the guns, or just those of one caliber?

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• The removal of the port and starboard offset if it is not possible to place things only on a single side of the vessel. Surely this mechanic is currently moot?

Actually, it is possible to deliberately choose to unbalance your ship, and some people like to do fancy fiddling until they can do cross-deck firing. Just don't touch it if you don't want it yourself.

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• For the game to clearly state what fore and aft offset will do mechanically, and at what thresholds.

There is already a pop up when you put the mouse on Longitudinal Weight Offset. There are no theresholds, just a snowball effect where the losses are small at low imbalance value and huge at great values. You decide how much loss you want to accept, but do keep one eye on Pitch.

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• To be able to click a 'fire arc view' which shows a plan view where all primary, secondary and torpedo arcs of fire can all be highlighted, for consideration.

The most useful proposal. Still, I'm not delaying the campaign one day for this, and this is actually a more useful capability in the battle UI.

On 1/27/2020 at 9:57 PM, Siranui said:

• For there to be a way to highlight all guns on a design. Currently, if I want to remove all 2" guns from a build, I have to painstakingly 'find' all of those little barrels by squinting and waving the mouse around, while checking the armament precis to see if I've found them all, instead of being able to directly see where they are.

Find Ship Details on the Right Panel. Find Weapons. Roll mouse over each line of weapons. In addition to the popup for the weapon performance, all guns of that caliber will highlight in yellow.

[RAMJB]

2 hours ago, Siranui said:

but it is exceptionally rude to simply declare that other's issues are non-issues, then table your own suggestions, and state that they 'should take priority'.

That's not "exceptionally rude".

It's what we're supposed to do here. Give feedback. Said feedback includes stating opinions about other people's proposals. If someone thinks your ideas are less urgent that other stuff, then why is it rude for them to state as much?. Again, is what we're here to do, to begin with.

Otherwise this wouldn't be a feedback thread. It'd be a wishlist. And utterly and completely useless for the developers to help them out deciding what we, as a collective, want to see sorted out first.

 

2 hours ago, Siranui said:

If you don't recognise that, then it's exceedingly fresh of you to be lecturing others on the subject of testing.

I intentionally left out whatever my personal opinions on your suggestions is, because what I stated is independent on whatever I think about them. Even if I thought all your ideas were exceptionally good, that doesn't mean you need to be a jerk to others who don't think the same. For the record, a good number of them I think hold merit. Others, not so much. Neither case means that anyone who thinks different should shut up about what they think of the urgency of those ideas and the need to see them implemented pronto.

Also your tone and approach of "if you don't think like me, then you're a (insert deprecating comment)" is exceedingly unwelcome, at least from my point of view. You call others "exceedingly rude" when you're acting incredibly rude yourself. Lead by example, or expect to be called out about it.

Then again, I'm not a forum moderator and I'm not trying to come across as one. I'm just letting you know that if you want to push your ideas because you think they're good, it doesn't mean  you  need to be a (insert another decrecating comment) to people who disagree with you.

And this is coming from someone who's strongly opinionated himself, and who doesn't run away from heated arguments. But one thing is having opinions, disagreeing with other people, talking about it and discussing why ,yet holding at least a modicum of respect to others.
Another very different one is being jugdemental about others not sharing your views. If you want to push for your ideas, back them up with argumentative reasons of why and how are they important and urgent. Not with the rethoric equivalent of "if you don't think like I do, you're a d*ck".
 

Edited January 29, 2020 by RAMJB

[DougToss]

I don't see why a dedicated update for UI after the campaign is out would be a bad idea. The campaign is surely going to add tonnes of UI elements, it might be simpler to go over design, battle and campaign UI all at once? 

[Joryl]

On 1/27/2020 at 6:29 AM, HusariuS said:

You can just click with your LMB on the number and change it lol.

I was about to ask how you got 240 inches of armor on your hull and realized you were metric..   Lol us damn Americans and our leftover imperial measurement system to muddy things up...

[roachbeef]

10 hours ago, Siranui said:

Feel free to provide unsolicited feedback on other's comments, but it is exceptionally rude to simply declare that other's issues are non-issues, then table your own suggestions, and state that they 'should take priority'.

Just adding to @RAMJB's comment, I would like to say that because there are so few people on this forum, it is possible for the developers to think that a feature is of high priority when, in fact, few people think so. If we do not respond to features we think can wait until later, then the developers might spend time implementing them when there are priority items that must be addressed first. We do value your feedback and are not discounting it; we're just adding caveats that the developers can read in order to better inform them about development roadmaps.

IIRC in either this forum or the Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail forum there was a pinned thread for suggestions where either a volunteer player kept track of common suggestions and feedback, and then cross them out as they were implemented or addressed. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find it. An addition of polls (which are updated every patch) to prioritize addressing of key features would also seem like a nice thing to have.

Edited January 29, 2020 by roachbeef

[DougToss]

Obviously when it comes to game design, all of us are on the outside looking in. What I appreciate about this community though is that we do have experts, or at least very serious hobbyists and amateur historians of naval warfare. Of course implementing all of their suggestions can make something that while incredible, may not make for a very good game either in terms of accessibility for a large amount of people or coherent game design. The fleet action at Jutland took place over 4 hours. Just having one battle of that duration I think would be too much for a gameplay session even for the most serious of simulator fans. So while the "grogs" are in my opinion indisputably right when it comes to matters of historical or technical accuracy, the camp arguing for accessibility does have valid concerns.  

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't know how simple polls or volunteer moderators can balance these considerations because really they are differing opinions on game design, and compromising on any one point could alter the shape of the end product dramatically. 

[roachbeef]

3 minutes ago, DougToss said:

The fleet action at Jutland took place over 4 hours

I think that, if possible, that can become a technical issue rather than a design decision. If the devs are able to increase time compression to something along the lines of Victory at Sea: Pacific or Silent Hunter 4's max time in-battle limit (32X), then 4 hours could become about 8 minutes, which is manageable. Adding ten to twenty minutes for micro (like torp avoidance) should give a decent battle time of 20-30 times. Short battles would be over in a few minutes at most. The only issue is frame rate—I've noticed that with a lot of secondaries, frame rate can drop to 10 FPS on a 1080Ti and i7-6700K at full settings. That being said, that is an issue present with other games dealing with large-scale battles, like the Total War series, so that may be best left to the user.

3 minutes ago, DougToss said:

I don't know how simple polls or volunteer moderators can balance these considerations because really they are differing opinions on game design, and compromising on any one point could alter the shape of the end product dramatically. 

I completely agree. Public opinion is an important factor, but creator vision, feasibility, and cost-efficiency are more important. Still, a thread like that could be a useful input to gauge audience response to game development. If anybody volunteers, I'll contribute as much as I can (can't take full responsibility because I'm finishing grad school this semester).

[Cptbarney]

Too be honest, it would be nice if peeps wouldn't shoot down those who want the game to be more accessbile. Mainly because if you want development to continue you need a decent sized audience who is willing to spend quite a bit of money, and while i want the game to be challenging and fun. I also want it too keep to its realism roots as well. Since that is one of the main reasons why i bothered to play in the first place (ship designer being the thing that actually interested me to bother picking this game up regardless).

Just annoying too see people play down on other peoples ideas or opinions because they 'feel' (not know or think) that there point of view is better etc.

We should have dedicated section of the forum for ideas and that split into areas for ships, guns, mechanics, graphics, missions etc.

[RAMJB]

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

Too be honest, it would be nice if peeps wouldn't shoot down those who want the game to be more accessbile. Mainly because if you want development to continue you need a decent sized audience who is willing to spend quite a bit of money, and while i want the game to be challenging and fun.

I'm not opposed to make the game accesible. I'm not sure anyone is.

Making a game accesible doesn't mean making it unhistorical however. Which is what the "accesible" crowd seem to not get. Just because things are modeled, designed, adjusted, and tailored to mirror historical counterparts doesn't mean the whole thing has to be "inaccessible". It means that some things that seem the holy grail of "accesible" titles don't mean squat though. Things like "balance". or things like "expectations".

But accesible?. Games can be both tremendously immersive and accurate historically wise while being accessible. Have you played Unity of Command 2?. Perfect instance of that. I don't see why this one should be different - simple and accesible enough for audiences who're not familiar with warship design of the era the game covers, while being accurate, immersive and historically correct in the meantime. Both aren't self-exclusive.



As for the "decent sized audience"... there's plenty of stuff out there that's incredibly complex and has the learning curve of Mt. Olympus, yet is very succesful in the market. Just go around, take a look at how "accesible" things like DCS is - yet that simulator is making a KILLING. Or how about Europa Universalis IV  (with all the dlcs included in the mix)?, look up how much the whole pack costs, look up how people with thousands of hours playing it still say they don't yet know the full mechanics of the game...

and then look at the kind of killing Paradox has made out of that kind of game. It's not hard to understand that there's PLENTY of people who're more than happy to pay big bucks for something that's insanely complex, if it's good at the same time.

In a nutshell: to have a "decent sized audiences" you don't have to produce dumbed down products. At all. That's the kind of crappy myth dumbed down entertainment products equivalent to trash food (like Call of Duty and similars) has imprinted on the general audience. Doesn't mean it's true, as there are far more than enough examples of the contrary to prove the whole assumption wrong.


There's a mass of people who confuse "accessible" with "forced unhistorical balans" as an argument to steer games off course towards being what they're not supposed to be. But that argument holds no weight, and there are only too many instances to prove that's the case.



TLDR: accesibility doesn't mean unrealistic. And it's perfectly possible to reach a pretty wide audience without going down the "dumbed down gameplay" path.

Edited January 30, 2020 by RAMJB

[Cptbarney]

9 minutes ago, RAMJB said:

I'm not opposed to make the game accesible. I'm not sure anyone is.

Making a game accesible doesn't mean making it unhistorical however. Which is what the "accesible" crowd seem to not get. Just because things are modeled, designed, adjusted, and tailored to mirror historical counterparts doesn't mean the whole thing has to be "inaccessible".

as for the "decent sized audience"... there's plenty of stuff out there that's incredibly complex and has the learning curve of Mt. Olympus, yet is very succesful in the market. Just go around, take a look at how "accesible" Europa Universalis IV is (with all the dlcs included in the mix), how much the whole pack costs, and the kind of killing Paradox has made out of that kind of game to understand that there's PLENTY of people who're more than happy to pay big bucks for something that's insanely complex, if it's good.

Then again I'm not arguing to make this game insanely complex. I want it to be good. And I don't want the mass of people who confuse "accessible" with "forced unhistorical balans" to steer it off course towards being what it's not supposed to be.

Oh i was talking about the attitudes that i have noticed some people seem to take to those who don't mind branching this game out to a wider audience, considering the fact that warship games are incredibly niche as a genre in the gaming market already that doesn't help the position.

Yeah i know about paradox and how much money they make from their games, although im not sure why we are comparing a game that hasn't even reached its fourth alpha to games that have been out for 4+ years, i want this game to succeed (i wouldn't be here otherwise) but that doesn't mean we should go mental with realism. They make money because they are fun to play and have huge replayability (mods and the games themselves) and are somewhat easy to get into but very hard to master also are very visually pleasing games too.

Games can still be unaccessible just by being a visual mess, nevermind mechanics or gameplay itself. And theres plenty of examples of this on steam, nevermind before steam. Also judging from the arguements i see here, people seem to decide what they think is 'historical' or 'realistic' Too be honest i would like too see this game branch outwards in terms of visuals and extra mechanics for added gameplay (bombardments, coastal raids, invasions etc). Regardless if a game can't generate fun, its a bad game regardless.

Either way we aren't the developers, they have the final say on what direction they want to take the game in. Personally i like too see something mostly like RTW's with maybe elements taken from successful grand or 4x strategy games that already exist.

Having the option to turn off or on historical/Non-historical things should be added regardless, but if this game turns into a sim or they cut down on the customisability of building your own ships and lack of empire building from a naval prespective, then ill sadly but silently leave.

[DougToss]

1 hour ago, Cptbarney said:

Oh i was talking about the attitudes that i have noticed some people seem to take to those who don't mind branching this game out to a wider audience, considering the fact that warship games are incredibly niche as a genre in the gaming market already that doesn't help the position.

Games can still be unaccessible just by being a visual mess, nevermind mechanics or gameplay itself. And theres plenty of examples of this on steam, nevermind before steam. Also judging from the arguements i see here, people seem to decide what they think is 'historical' or 'realistic' Too be honest i would like too see this game branch outwards in terms of visuals and extra mechanics for added gameplay (bombardments, coastal raids, invasions etc). Regardless if a game can't generate fun, its a bad game regardless.

Having the option to turn off or on historical/Non-historical things should be added regardless, but if this game turns into a sim or they cut down on the customisability of building your own ships and lack of empire building from a naval prespective, then ill sadly but silently leave.

Regarding your first point, DCS is a hardcore sim that models aircraft with incredible fidelity, but has reached a wider audience through an accessible platform in Steam, and a great UI. That also applies to ARMA 3, Graviteam titles and so on. UBoat and Wolfpack are often charting on Steam despite being extremely rigorous submarine simulators. Allowing a wider audience to understand and interact with complex systems within the game through a good UI is much easier than pandering to them by simplifying game systems. 

All games teach their audience, through gameplay, tutorials and UI, including in-game encyclopedias. Once you understand the mechanics and UI, even if your understanding is a rock-paper-scissors approach to mobility-protection-firepower, you can play and have fun under conditions where the data matches the real world as closely as possible. 

Second, nobody here is deciding what they "think" is historical or realistic. They are presenting historical, that is to say real data. That data comes as a shock to some people who think that warships are bumper cars. For example:

These are the results of a gunnery test published in 1906.

I didn't decide that those numbers are realistic or historical numbers for the penetration of various calibers at various ranges. Those are what real shells did in real tests. Now for the game designers, this makes things much easier because they have information to work from. They know how effective to make things in the game because they know how effective they were. It means that players and the AI can design ships from a known set of data. 

If however, someone decided it would be more balanced to have 6in guns penetrate the same amount of armour as 12in guns, now nobody knows how to design a ship because no real ship was designed under those circumstances. That means every other system is now out of whack as well. The very rationale for a dreadnought battleship disappears if large guns are not more accurate and damaging than smaller ones. So you are left with a balanced game about designing battleships where none of the reasons for designing battleships exist. That doesn't sound very fun.

Finally, your third point. You have to qualify what you consider to be "historical/Non-historical things". For example, just having the player as  First Sea Lord in 1904 is ahistorical, in the same way that pressing "start" on the most rigorously accurate paradox game changes history. I don't think anyone is opposed to that. All of the other historical factors exist so you have a frame of reference. 

Having good weather in late May 1916 is also ahistorical and would likely prevent the Battle of Jutland. I don't think anybody would oppose a dynamic weather system though. Again, all else being equal players would know how to design and command ships even if there had been clear skies on June 1, 1916 so long as all of the other factors were present. 

Finally, there is no reason why you couldn't have the freedom to design ships or command them on the strategic map in an otherwise rigorously accurate simulator. It simply means that until you learn through gameplay, tutorials the UI, or reading real sources your designs may not be very good. 

That's all part of the fun. 

[Illya von Einzbern]

14 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Oh i was talking about the attitudes that i have noticed some people seem to take to those who don't mind branching this game out to a wider audience, considering the fact that warship games are incredibly niche as a genre in the gaming market already that doesn't help the position.

Yeah i know about paradox and how much money they make from their games, although im not sure why we are comparing a game that hasn't even reached its fourth alpha to games that have been out for 4+ years, i want this game to succeed (i wouldn't be here otherwise) but that doesn't mean we should go mental with realism. They make money because they are fun to play and have huge replayability (mods and the games themselves) and are somewhat easy to get into but very hard to master also are very visually pleasing games too.

Games can still be unaccessible just by being a visual mess, nevermind mechanics or gameplay itself. And theres plenty of examples of this on steam, nevermind before steam. Also judging from the arguements i see here, people seem to decide what they think is 'historical' or 'realistic' Too be honest i would like too see this game branch outwards in terms of visuals and extra mechanics for added gameplay (bombardments, coastal raids, invasions etc). Regardless if a game can't generate fun, its a bad game regardless.

Either way we aren't the developers, they have the final say on what direction they want to take the game in. Personally i like too see something mostly like RTW's with maybe elements taken from successful grand or 4x strategy games that already exist.

Having the option to turn off or on historical/Non-historical things should be added regardless, but if this game turns into a sim or they cut down on the customisability of building your own ships and lack of empire building from a naval prespective, then ill sadly but silently leave.

Talk about the peeps that despise Subs and CVs or planes in general....  Just mentioning one of those gets bucket of anger and perhaps some toxic.....
In the end it not just about battleships it's about naval warfare. Something i have noticed that some keeps forgetting which is more sadder than anything.

Realism and historicallity can be merged quite well together as they are more or less married
 

[Cptbarney]

6 minutes ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

Talk about the peeps that despise Subs and CVs or planes in general....  Just mentioning one of those gets bucket of anger and perhaps some toxic.....
In the end it not just about battleships it's about naval warfare. Something i have noticed that some keeps forgetting which is more sadder than anything.

Realism and historicallity can be merged quite well together as they are more or less married
 

Yeah, i can understand why doe. They should have optional DLC's if people want to get them or not without takign away features that could be included in others.

True, but you need to make it engaging plus fun otherwise trying to play becomes either a dull experience of a frustrating one. Either way i think we are all off-topic at this point lol (we really need an off-topic section really). Atm i just want the game to develop at a decent pace without sacrificing quality.

[Illya von Einzbern]

19 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Yeah, i can understand why doe. They should have optional DLC's if people want to get them or not without takign away features that could be included in others.

True, but you need to make it engaging plus fun otherwise trying to play becomes either a dull experience of a frustrating one. Either way i think we are all off-topic at this point lol (we really need an off-topic section really). Atm i just want the game to develop at a decent pace without sacrificing quality.

I hope many of us wishes the same.
I did say it some time ago but this game has loads of potential to rub pickles in right way that other games does not really do that much.

DLCs for something is actually part quite crucial in life cycle and time events...
(paradox approach which kinda sucks. a gentle kick to weak point just not feel too bad but bit sad).
DLCs could provide some extra money for more development.... Dunno just have tick box that says Nay to aviation to please those that says planes does not exist and admires the Zero fighters (those peeps also exist.....confusing).
DLCs could contain more events or mechanics dunno really. A ship classes as DLC really feels like cheating or spotters planes and maritime patrol planes...

 

i do agree this is getting bit off the topic.

[Joryl]

9 hours ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

Talk about the peeps that despise Subs and CVs or planes in general....  Just mentioning one of those gets bucket of anger and perhaps some toxic.....
In the end it not just about battleships it's about naval warfare. Something i have noticed that some keeps forgetting which is more sadder than anything.

Realism and historicallity can be merged quite well together as they are more or less married
 

I have to say I am one of them no pitchforks though ( Airplanes at least ) kind of ruins naval warfare as far as ship to ship combat historically so yeah planes are cool in PTO but this game mainly takes place before airplanes became the dominant power pre WW2...  now for a DLC I  wouldn't mind a WW2 campaign. but base game I would prefer the game not to go into scenarios where you are fighting a navy 200 miles away from your ships with planes I want to see the ships duke it out,  i would love subs though. 

Edited January 31, 2020 by Joryl

[Bluishdoor76]

25 minutes ago, Joryl said:

I have to say I am one of them no pitchforks though ( Airplanes at least ) kind of ruins naval warfare as far as ship to ship combat historically so yeah planes are cool in PTO but this game mainly takes place before airplanes became the dominant power pre WW2...  now for a DLC I  wouldn't mind a WW2 campaign. but base game I would prefer the game not to go into scenarios where you are fighting a navy 200 miles away from your ships with planes I want to see the ships duke it out,  i would love subs though. 

The end date for the game iirc is around 1942, so WW2 along carriers will eventually be a thing that needs be considered part of the main game. CVs were around way before WW2, HMS Argus was built in 1918 (though not really designated as a CV). Still, I'd enjoy having CVs as part of the main game and not DLC since with CVs and aircraft come along AA weaponry.

[RAMJB]

13 hours ago, Illya von Einzbern said:

Talk about the peeps that despise Subs and CVs or planes in general....  Just mentioning one of those gets bucket of anger and perhaps some toxic.....
In the end it not just about battleships it's about naval warfare. Something i have noticed that some keeps forgetting which is more sadder than anything.

Realism and historicallity can be merged quite well together as they are more or less married
 

The problem remains that while CVs, planes, and air power in general were indeed part of naval warfare, we're still taking about a game with a very small development team that, understandably, wants to have a game ready to release in something qualifiable as a "reasonable time".

Air power is a very complex matter on itself. Making a game about the infancy and growth of naval air power since the 1910s up to 1950, with all the intricacies, all the factors involved, all the game mechanics needed, etc, would make for a standalone  game on it's own.

and here we are, hearing voices claiming (not to say, demanding, which is what some people are actually doing) for THAT to be added on top of what's already an exceedingly complex game, with just ships alone, at a point where it's still in a quite early stage of development. After so many years, after so many games that foundered in development, or ended being horribly underpar in the end, because of endless loops of "feature creep", has the audience learned nothing from the history of software entertainment yet?.

How about letting them finish what they currently have between their hands first, and THEN, ask for more things on top?

Jesus, guys, give the developers a break. Let them properly finish the naval portion of the game first. Let them space and time to work on it so it works on it's own, and does so well. After that goal is achieved then, sure, will be time to add all that extra complex stuff on it - it will be done on something that works, is completed, works well, and makes for a solid base to build onto.

But do it before that goal is achieved, we'll be on a heck of a mess, and the results won't be pretty.


There's a precedent to this. It's caled Rule the Waves. A game that in it's first iteration had not a single plane, yet you could play up to 1950 in it's campaign. Once that game was completed, and reasonable cycle of time post-launch had passed (with the developer adjusting the game, correcting bugs, etc), they began working on RTW2. With planes, carriers, and all that flying candy. And it worked perfectly fine that way (well some would argue that not so much because the UI implementation of planes could be better, and their use in battle was kinda obnoxious until you got the gist of how it worked, but there's that).

So, seriously: how about letting this guys do the same, instead of bombarding them each third thread with a "suggestion" (not to say a demand) of CVs, floatplanes, landplanes, and all that stuff?. I'm the first one who wants them, I'm the first one who wants a realistic, immersive, historically believable implementation for this game. that obviously means planes too.

But I don't want to see the WHOLE game (with planes or without them) ruined because an extreme case of feature creep like the one that trying to add planes into the mix right now, far before the time when it's advisable to add even more complex stuff, would cause.


So, I'll insist once more. Please, leave planes alone for the time being. After release, and a reasonable post-release cycle for fixes, adjustements ,etc, then there'll be time for DLCs, or even 2nd installments of the game. But only then. Give this guys time to get the basic framework first - ships, campaigns with ships, battles with ships, and only ships - ,give this guys time to get it right. And THEN, let's add carriers, divebombers, floatplanes and whatnot.

Because if that's not how it's done then probably we won't have a game at all, in anything resembling a reasonable time frame.

 

Edited February 1, 2020 by RAMJB

[arkhangelsk]

There's one more precedent to this: Victory at Sea Pacific. It was very ambitious, with a lot of scope. I just took it out of the box again this week and verify that even after god knows how many fixes, what falls through the cracks were things like controllability (everything was very clunky and it is hard to get things to move to where you want) and realism (I wince as the dive bombers kind of go above the target and then kind of sharp turn into this 90 degree dive and the 78 day time to build a fleet carrier.) Again, I stopped playing. I will soon forget I ever bought this game, again.

With limited resources, choice has to be made between scope and quality. I think quality is more important.

[SmoCro]

I remember Victory at Sea Pacific.

I think I either got my hands on a demo or a free weekend.

I passed... hard.

[BattleshipOfDestruction]

On 1/29/2020 at 4:37 AM, Whomst'd've said:

Something similar to this?

 

Yes, this is very similar to my view on how it should be done. Also, to be honest, Since HMS Hood's hull, towers and shape of turrets will be added, it is safe to assume Bismarck would be too. In general, there should be a hull and relevant main and secondary tower for each general era specific to the nation for each ship class whenever available. I would definitely like to know if the Japanese nation would get the Nagato Hull and it's pagoda tower along with the Kongou tower for the possibility of authentic rebuilds of Fuso and Ise. The turrets though are also in need of a bit of a upgrade too, they should be shaped like the real mounts that were available for each nation. For example an American 8" armed heavy cruiser should not be carrying Japanese 8" mounts and likewise a 16" armed Iowa class rebuild should not carry the same turret design as the Yamato Class battleship. Most European nations had similar main and secondary towers for each respective era until the modern era, though some technologically advanced ones exist; such as the ones found on Bismarck, Littorio, King George V, Nelson, Dunkerque, Richelieu, etc. The Japanese were the most unique with their refit versions of their existing Battlecruisers and Fast Battleships adding a pagoda tower design that is distinctly similar to the Domjon of a traditional Japanese Castle and if they would have built these ships from scratch in the 1930s would probably have used the same distinct pagoda tower. To me at present, sometimes an American battleship feels Japanese and sometimes a German battleship seems more British. One critical thing that is lacking in the ship designer is the lack of modern light cruiser and destroyer hulls for all navies that had modern designs by 1940. Besides these suggestions I don't particularly have a problem with anything else.

Edited February 1, 2020 by BattleshipOfDestruction

[fsp]

I bought Victory at Sea: Pacific.

Have hardly played it.

Have sunk tons of hours into RTW2.

While I agree that we should not ask for too many features from such a small team, I just feel that planes are a must. They are integral to naval warfare of the period in the game, it just feels totally weird not having them. Especially strange that some of the people that push for realism all the time are cool with omitting planes and CVs. 

I absolutely understand and appreciate the RTW/RTW2 analogy. IF we could be certain of getting a UAD 2 within a couple of years, I would be fine with UAD 1 not having planes. But there is always the danger of not getting that and tbh I really don't like RTW 1 that much because of its lack of planes.

 

 

 

[ston5883]

I've seen the talks about realism in here and I'm just going to weigh in real quick. I want it but I don't want them to go overboard with it. What I am talking about is more dealing with the campaign side of it. I don't want to repeat history exactly. If they put in naval treaties then put them in to where they can happen and the bases of them are more random. I don't want it to be the exact Washington or London treaty word for word or necessarily at the exact dates. Randomize it to make me think and throw me off my game a little. When it comes to ships I don't want to see missiles and lasers but I do want a bit more freedom in how I build a ship. If I so choose to make a battleship with nothing but 6in guns all over it then let me be able to make it. Is it practical, No it's not but if I so choose to make that poor design then I should be able to and it's on me for wasting funds and time in my campaign for a bad design. So with things like this the game could stay historical but also dynamic enough to add that replay value of each campaign playing out differently. I already think wars will be dynamic so no worry there of having to repeat and it might be great to have WWI as Russia vs China.