Planning of next updates

[Robbie]

An after action report with a breakdown of how each weapon on your ship performed (damage, accuracy, number of hits). It would help with measuring how successful a design was.

A description or information on how ships were built. Doesn't have to be in depth, but a civ-pedia style document within the game would be nice. You could have examples of ships using in-game screenshots.

[Tankaxe]

Recently back from a custom battle between a 1v1 battleship fight with 1918 tech and the results were concerning. AP damage and ship survivability is constantly beaten horse during the Alpha but its still something to take a look at.

during my little test the enemy ship took over 32 penetrating hits from 14" guns in 1918. this is quite ridiculous as some can see and I wasn't able to sink the ship because it turned around leaving nothing to shoot at but the stern. As anyone knows when a battle turns into a stern chase it will be impossible to catch them because all of your penetrating hits will register no damage leaving the structural health bar alone. Even an ammo detonation did little to speed things along

flooding after serious pounding dropped to %21 and rapidly clawed its way to %51 once it turned astern.

This is currently the more frustrating issue in the Alpha and in my opinion should be the most pressing matter. Regardless I enjoy the game and wish the devs best of luck.

[RAMJB]

End-on engagements are a nuisance indeed. The primary problem lays with the way the armor model seems to be implemented. Instead of "belt" protections we have "side" protections. That means all the external volume of the warship is covered on nominal belt armor thickness, when it should be only the areas close to the waterline (the upper areas of the hull being protected by thinner "upper" armor). As a result achieving reliable penetrations from high angles is terribly problematic because ships are far more protected than what they really could be.

I don't have a problem with the way the structural damage is represented. A shell detonating on an already mauled compartment shouldn't do much to the overall ship structure - what was there to be destroyed and weakened, is already weakened and destroyed after all. But mixed with the armor model this leads to highly problematic scenarios where killing off fleeing enemies is far more difficult than what it should be.

It's not something with a fast fix, however. The game needs a more detailed, more realistic, armor model in place for that; and that can't happen overnight. While I'm sure it's something that will happen in the future at some point (can't have a truly realistic naval game with the armor model we currently have - it kinda works for a placeholder to an extent, but this can't be the final shape of things), it's not an easy task to accomplish.

What I'd do as a temporary "fix", or at least to mitigate it, is to force the AI to stay and fight until their ship is far more damaged than as what it is right now. At the moment in 1v1 engagements when the AI is down to 50%-ish structure, it turns tails.Having AI being smart enough to know when to try to break of action instead of being a suicidal "fight till the end" it's a good feature, in all honesty, but doesn't mix well with the current state of things. So until a new armor model is in place, toy with that threshold a bit, lower it to 25% structure before the AI tries to disengage. Structural damage seriously hampers top speed, and fleeing ships will be much easier to catch and finish that way.

Again, placeholder "patch" for a problem originated by a placeholder armor model. A true fix can't be introduced until the final armor model is in place. But yeah, it gets seriously annoying at times so something temporary should be done to at least make those stern chases much shorter and far less tedious than what they currently are.

Edited January 8, 2020 by RAMJB

[Squatter]

#Steeltrap

Thanks for the info - appreciate it! As you point out, it's dense stuff understanding what everything means in the ship designer, and user help/explanation would go a long way.

I use the term 'dreadhead' with the greatest respect btw! I'm a history enthusiast, and enjoy games for their 'realism', but not to the extent that I even knew what a barbette was before playing this game, for example. So while I think it's important all those folks who know what they are talking about help make this game as realistic feeling as possible, I think every bit as great an emphasis needs placing on playability for strategy/sim game players of all types. Don't get me wrong, I'd hate this to veer towards WoW, but simple GUI tweaks, tooltips, etc - can make a big difference in drawing more casual players in without compromising the core realism of the game engine. 

The bigger the audience the game reaches, the more likely to have further DLC and sequels etc, which would be great. Personally I was disappointed UGCW didn't get a sequel with dynamic campaign, for example, cos that's the best tactical muskets-era engine I've ever played. But that's another story. 

 

[Steeltrap]

1 hour ago, Squatter said:

#Steeltrap

Thanks for the info - appreciate it! As you point out, it's dense stuff understanding what everything means in the ship designer, and user help/explanation would go a long way.

I use the term 'dreadhead' with the greatest respect btw! I'm a history enthusiast, and enjoy games for their 'realism', but not to the extent that I even knew what a barbette was before playing this game, for example. So while I think it's important all those folks who know what they are talking about help make this game as realistic feeling as possible, I think every bit as great an emphasis needs placing on playability for strategy/sim game players of all types. Don't get me wrong, I'd hate this to veer towards WoW, but simple GUI tweaks, tooltips, etc - can make a big difference in drawing more casual players in without compromising the core realism of the game engine. 

The bigger the audience the game reaches, the more likely to have further DLC and sequels etc, which would be great. Personally I was disappointed UGCW didn't get a sequel with dynamic campaign, for example, cos that's the best tactical muskets-era engine I've ever played. But that's another story. 

 

You're welcome, and I entirely agree with you about keeping an eye on ease of understanding.

In business it's just as important for staff/customers to understand how to perform/access services as it is to design correctly the processes behind those services, something some large companies frequently seem to struggle to understand.

Same goes here. It's just as vital to have yourself and others giving the "that may be accurate, and you may understand it, but the rest of us think it's confusing as hell or makes little intuitive sense" as it is for the 'dreadheads' (a term that made me chuckle and I didn't think for a second it was ill intended) to go on about technical things. There are plenty of things I haven't worked out, and I found I'd made an error in the first version of my post when I went to check it against the game. Which is great, because now I know more than before, too. As they say, if you really want to test your knowledge of something, try explaining it to someone else.

I assume we ALL want the game to do well regardless of our backgrounds and knowledge, so I always try to view everyone's input here on that basis.

Cheers

[RedParadize]

@Nick Thomadis (Sorry to tag you, but I want to make sure that this message is seen as directed to you and not a answer to other messages.)

At the moment, most of the important decision are made during design phase. Battle can last quite a while and there is very little to do. Basically battle is just a testing ground for your ship. I fear them becoming repetitive during campaign. For that reason I think tactical side need to be worked on prior or side by side to campaign. Here is few thing that I think would make battle more tactically interesting:

-Fleet Formation.
-Fleet Maneuver.
-Better enemy AI.
-Crew and crew morale.

[arkhangelsk]

I'll dispute this a little bit.

4 hours ago, RAMJB said:

I don't have a problem with the way the structural damage is represented. A shell detonating on an already mauled compartment shouldn't do much to the overall ship structure - what was there to be destroyed and weakened, is already weakened and destroyed after all. But mixed with the armor model this leads to highly problematic scenarios where killing off fleeing enemies is far more difficult than what it should be.

(...)

What I'd do as a temporary "fix", or at least to mitigate it, is to force the AI to stay and fight until their ship is far more damaged than as what it is right now. At the moment in 1v1 engagements when the AI is down to 50%-ish structure, it turns tails.Having AI being smart enough to know when to try to break of action instead of being a suicidal "fight till the end" it's a good feature, in all honesty, but doesn't mix well with the current state of things. So until a new armor model is in place, toy with that threshold a bit, lower it to 25% structure before the AI tries to disengage. Structural damage seriously hampers top speed, and fleeing ships will be much easier to catch and finish that way.

I'll argue the better solution is to allow more "structural damage bleedthrough" from the red destroyed compartments than is presently the case.

First, AI behavior that's reasonable and realistic (human-like) is hard. If you kind of like what you are seeing in that department, it is more important to preserve and refine it.

Second, the AI doing the smart thing is actually remarkably annoying to human, especially casual players. I can easily foresee the result following your strategy when you revert back to a better threshold for starting the retreat, with people writing complaints about "Ships running more than in earlier version. Annoying. Plz nerf." (We are seeing that right now 😁). All discussion as to how this is actually realistic will fall on deaf ears, so I think getting people used to them running is important. The overall difficulty in sinking ships should sap towards the correct overall state, rather than overshooting with a knowingly bad patch and then trying to work back.

Third, in very broad terms of overall effect, the ships need to be a bit crunchier. Shouldn't the temporary fix involve making the ships crunchier instead of nerfing the AI? Besides, with the correct "overall crunchiness" (even if it is for the wrong reasons), the AI can be refined to best work with it.

Fourth, from a realism perspective, is the current conception right (I mean right in terms of best "tactical accuracy" pending a major armor model revamp)? I grant that a shell detonating on an already mauled compartment shouldn't do as much, or perhaps even much, to the overall ship structure. But right now, all too often this is exaggerated to it doing nothing but giving a few points. It isn't a "destroyed compartment". it is an "indestructible compartment".

Isn't Structure supposed to represent the slow warping, loosening and other damages throughout the whole ship (rather than just the individual compartment) from having objects the weight of cars slamming into it? Every time I get a large caliber penetration or partial pen to a red compartment and the structure doesn't go down at all, I find myself wondering exactly what that was supposed to represent. Is it falling through an already created hole? If that's so, shouldn't I get to penetrate the lower decks? Is it slamming onto relatively fresh metal within a generally non-functional space? If that's so, shouldn't I get structural damage? Even if I hit a piece of weakened metal and its "softness" somehow attenuated the shock going through the entire ship, shouldn't I still get a little bit? I am getting nothing.

Edited January 8, 2020 by arkhangelsk
Addded clarification for foresight.

[Maty83]

Most of what should be added has been said, but here are some of my points from the less obscure side:

Newer CL and DD hulls. Currently we don't have anything past 1900's for CLs and 1920's for DDs (The displacement allows to go large, but you won't be able to get a Fletcher or Le Fantasque going with how they are built)

DDs able to mount up to twin 6" guns maybe? (I am thinking of French and German DDs from WWII)

Turret sizes varying based on number of guns in a turret and caliber (I should be able to place a twin 16" where I can place a triple 14". Currently my most used calibre is the 14" because it still fits on the medium-sized barbette). To add to that, maybe let us customize sizes of barbettes fully? (Plus let us PLEASE place barbettes wherever we want, I'd love to create superfiring secondaries)

Turret arc calculations taking barrels and ghost parts of superstructures into account. This is especially annoying on larger ships where it is obvious you should be able to get better angles

Hull building similar to what is shown on Steam? I would love to be able to have the deck higher section extend farther on some BBs. This is a customization option which could even affect seaworthiness.

Shell travel times-Shells are far too slow in most cases (Taking a minute to reach a target 30km away is bordering on insanity when muzzle speeds are taken into account). Let us define barrel lenghts for them too.

Torpedoes: Manually firing, or selecting the number of fired torpedoes should be a thing. I can't count the number of times my DD dumped 15 torps at a BB when only 5 would have sufficed. with the reload, saving them would be an incredibly good idea.

And last but not least: Stick side-mounted and centerline main guns into ONE GROUP per caliber. This one is hard to ignore on ships where you have very few centerline, or side-mounted guns (As in that case the lesser number makes locking on targets take a very long time)

[akd]

49 minutes ago, Maty83 said:

Shell travel times-Shells are far too slow in most cases (Taking a minute to reach a target 30km away is bordering on insanity when muzzle speeds are taken into account). Let us define barrel lenghts for them too.

Which gun / shell combination? E.g. for Brit 15-inch gun AP:

World War I and World War II performance for 1,920 lbs. (871 kg) 4crh APC Shell with MV = 2,400 fps (731.5 mps) 
   10,000 yards (9,140 m): 14.6 seconds 
   20,000 yards (18,290 m): 35.1 seconds 
   25,000 yards (22,860 m): 48.7 seconds 
   29,000 yards (26,520 m): 62.1 seconds

 

For actual US 16”/45 AP:

Time of flight for AP Shell with MV = 2,300 fps (701 mps) 
   10,000 yards (9,140 m): 14.5 seconds 
   20,000 yards (18,290 m): 32.6 seconds 
   30,000 yards (27,430 m): 56.6 seconds 
   36,000 yards (32,920 m): 79.8 seconds

Edited January 8, 2020 by akd

[WiselessOwl]

There were some furious discussions regarding penetration and armor model needing rework, and while I can agree with many of these, I personally think there is one more thing about "survivability" you need to tweak.

AI design priorities, thats it.

Cause for now, autodesign often tends to maximize offensive capability of the vessel, basically sticking guns upon guns upon guns all over the deck, compromising on literally anything else - speed, caliber unification, bulkheads, and most often - armor thickness. And while this strategy proves itself to some degree in smaller ships, on battleships it results in penetrations and fireworks all over the place even by small secondaries. And in case of battlecruisers it just getting ridiculous - they are being literally raped with EVERY caliber possible. Seriously, I've seen a BC with only 5 inches of max armor, and it looked like it was only conning tower, cause his armor stopped NOTHING. 

So, in short - please, consider putting in AI's electronic brains a little more will to build armored battleships, not just obese suicidal gunboats 😃

 

P.S. And regarding more designer flexibility - please, yes, remove the limit for barbettes placement at least... But, I would also like to RESTRICT one thing a bit - big turret placement on the very tips of ship bow and stern. Flexibility is great, but I think it would be difficult for crewmen to drop an anchor, with the turret sitting right on top of it😉

 

Thank you for this wonderful game, nonetheless \(*^*)/

 

Edited January 8, 2020 by WiselessOwl

[Skeksis]

5 hours ago, Maty83 said:

Hull building similar to what is shown on Steam? I would love to be able to have the deck higher section extend farther on some BBs. This is a customization option which could even affect seaworthiness.

Maybe this is still in the works?

Question, which is the preferable option in the longrun.

a) Having a small team of modelers supply hull shapes for the life of the game.

or

b) Letting players do all the work and build there own hull shapes.

Even if months of work was allocated to develop a 'hull builder', I'm pretty sure that the general playerbase wouldn't mind rescheduling if we got it. 🙂

Some other ship classes that a 'hull builder' could take care off... (etc for historical battle reproduction).

Auxiliary vessels.
Coastal Battleships.
Coastal Defence Battleships.
Gunboats, Patrol and Coastal Boats.
Minesweepers/Mine Cruisers?
Seaplane Carriers/Tenders?
Corvettes.
Freighters/Transports/Armed Trawlers.
Merchant Raiders.

Edited January 8, 2020 by Skeksis

[roachbeef]

We need in-battle voice acting that tells us about flooding, damage control parties, crew casualties, firing, course corrections, torpedos being spotted, etc. like in World of Warships. And I don't mind hammy acting but not full ham like WoWS in the VA department.

[Cptbarney]

1 hour ago, roachbeef said:

We need in-battle voice acting that tells us about flooding, damage control parties, crew casualties, firing, course corrections, torpedos being spotted, etc. like in World of Warships. And I don't mind hammy acting but not full ham like WoWS in the VA department.

Yeah, we could have voice acting or maybe if you zoom in close enough to the ship you can hear crew ambience like shouting, peeps giving orders, crew reacting to certain events (ship on fire, ship firing guns, recieving fire, pen hits, bouncing hits, spotting ships etc.).

Doesn't have to be all serious as well could have a few arrogant qoutes or phrases especially if they are on a huge BB and they spot a few light cruisers would give the game more atmosphere and make the crew more human.

[Illya von Einzbern]

Voice acting and more immersion!?
YES PLEASE also please add them that would make battles more enjoyable.

[Squatter]

21 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@Nick Thomadis (Sorry to tag you, but I want to make sure that this message is seen as directed to you and not a answer to other messages.)

At the moment, most of the important decision are made during design phase. Battle can last quite a while and there is very little to do. Basically battle is just a testing ground for your ship. I fear them becoming repetitive during campaign. For that reason I think tactical side need to be worked on prior or side by side to campaign. Here is few thing that I think would make battle more tactically interesting:

-Fleet Formation.
-Fleet Maneuver.
-Better enemy AI.
-Crew and crew morale.

I second this - the game is in danger of being decided in the shipyard, and not at sea. Obviously in reality this was in large part the case, but nevertheless this is a game.

To the above list I would add better targeting options: 

-independent main/secondary/torp targeting (sorry to repeat myself)
-manual torpedo fire mode
-more refined individual ship/division targeting options, perhaps affected by radio/signalling tech
 

[FFire31]

Dear devs

 

Congratulation for your game which is already great, and have the potential to become awesome. Of course, there’s plenty of room to improve it.

 

As a new player, I just did half of the academy (great way to learn the game btw)

 

After starting to conduct missions with more than one ship, I quickly realize how bad is the AI about controlling formations.

Each time one flagship is damaged enough and fall back, everything become a mess. Going from a line to abreast formation is a mess

Ships don’t try to evade individually torpedoes and very often manoeuver in a way they lose half of their firepower, in order to catch up the flagship who never wait them. Finally if one ship is targetted, it will not try to do some evasive manoeuver to lure ennemy’s firecontrol

 

I suggest you to add some options  that will help to control formations (some are similar to Battle fleet gothic Armada for those who knows that game)

One option to set a prefered combat distance (3k, 7k, 12k, with numbers accorded to the ship weaponry)

Another one to set an orientation (try to present stern, broadside, etc)

And a last one to set a stance (something like evasive, priorizing avoiding fire, or aggressive, with that one the ship will try to close in or fall back as quick as possible).

 

Another very annoying thing is that you can’t order a ship to focus one target with main weapon and another one with secondaries.

 

Others problem can wait after the campaing is implemented.

[RAMJB]

1 hour ago, Squatter said:

Obviously in reality this was in large part the case, but nevertheless this is a game.

I truly hope nobody takes this the wrong way. And that it's understood as a personal stance and opinion, not any kind of personal attack.

But I'm truly sick and tired of that sorry scapegoat of an excuse. "This is a game". So what?. It is a game that in it's description states things like "realistic", "realism" and "historical" more times than I take a sip of coffee everyday (and I'm on the verge of being a caffeine addict).

Get to grips with it. Games can be intended to replicate what mattered in real life, and still be games. That something "is a game" doesn't mean it necessarily has to throw every concept that mattered in historical scenarios to the trash bin and ignore it, just for the sake of "being a game". 

It's obviously OK that some games ,because of their intention to be simplistic, fast paced, and easy to learn and play, go that route. Arcade games, fast paced action games, that kind of thing. It's inherent to their design and main goal as a game to just not bother with things that can slow them down or complicate them too much for the casual gamer.


But a game which stated goal is to replicate the conditions and situations historical navies faced during the era of the big gun warship, it's not that it can't get away with ignoring reality, is that it DEPENDS on keeping it as a top priority and be mindful to keep it's fidelity towards reality: for the ultimate goal of a game like that is to make the player understand and play around with the decisions that mattered in a particular era, scenario, etc.

If those decisions don't matter, if historic realities, limits, barriers, don't matter, then what's the point of the game?. Building ships for the sake of buildng ships using a very detailed designer that accounts for many variables that matter on real life but not in an arcade game?. How's that anywhere close to the established goal of the game to put you in the shoes of the boss of a navy of the time and let you choose which direction you take it on to see if you can do better than your historical counterparts, if most of the decisions, limits, compromises, etc, that defined that role in real life and that defined how naval warfare was fought, from the very drawing board of the engineer to the seas where navies fought, don't matter for squats here?. 

If a game like that (like this) doesn't give a flying eff about the reality of that era "because it's a game", then it's stated goal is pointless to begin with, and it has no reason to exist as planned. Neither as a game nor as anything else.

Of course every game has to make certain compromises in the way it's shaped and presented - it's impossible to replicate all the factors that mattered in real historical scenarios in a computer game. But one thing is to compromise for the sake of porting historical-based gameplay into a computer interface and make it playable. Another is just to ignore history because "hey, it's a game". 

In this particular game the designer should be the first step towards establishing your fleet's strenghts and weaknesses, that later will matter in battle. If what you do there, the compromises you take, the decisions you make, the doctrine behind the design of your warships doesn't matter AT ALL because "hey, then it means wars are decided on the designer" (which can perfectly be the case, and would be a perfectly believable outcome of a war between navies with very different approaches and doctrines about naval warfare), and "It's a game", then... why the hell do we have a designer for to begin with?. What's the point of it, if you're not ready to face the consequences of the way you design your ships and navy later on in battle?. Heck, what's the point of the game as a whole then, if none of your decisions out of battle matter because "hey I don't want wars decided by anything other than what I do in battles, and I don't care that's exactly what happened in history because, hey this is a game"?. What's the point of bothering with a campaign?. What's the point of bothering with anything but "canned" scenarios then, if all that you want to matter is what you do in battle?.

Again, "hey, it's a game" can fly for things as World of Warships, games intended to be fast paced action arcades that never intended to bother themselves with reality or realism. This is not that kind of game. So the blasted "hey, it's a game" does NOT fly for it.


So (and here is where I mean that I hope nobody takes it as a personal attack, because it's not intended to be): stop already with the blasted universal and god-awfully repeated until madness mantra of "it's a game" applying to every game. It really got old more than a decade ago, yet it still is repeated by people as if it was some kind of ultimate universal truth, when it is not.
 

Edited January 9, 2020 by RAMJB

[Harrytheboat]

Mighty Hood looking magnificent, maybe we can give her the upgraded deck armour she always needed....

 

about 10 hours gameplay so far and really enjoying it, looking forward to the next update. 

 

Only thought at this time is locking down of technologies to different factions when it comes to the campaign, everyone charging around with 18 inch guns will be boring/impossible. Look forward to seeing later British and French designs, Nelsons, Vanguards, Normandie etc

[Latur Husky]

On 1/6/2020 at 7:29 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

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.
 

There are a few ships in that configuration, but I'd place my bet on HMS Hood.

As for things that would make the game better or more interesting:

1. Mission editor where players can design and share their missions with each other.

2. Save-able designs in Custom battles and maybe ability to share builds in form of a save file or something.

3. Ability to set enemy behaviour in custom battles (like never retreat for example)

4. Ability to design all ship classes in Custom battles both on our and enemy side.

5. Multiplayer battles and later Coop/competitive campaign maybe for up to 4 players perhaps?

6. Land battles/ Naval landings.

7. Replay recording function.

8. Night battles.

Edited January 9, 2020 by Latur Husky

[Cptbarney]

4 hours ago, RAMJB said:

I truly hope nobody takes this the wrong way. And that it's understood as a personal stance and opinion, not any kind of personal attack.
 

Eh it's fine, people use the same poor arguement for not balancing things or not playing the game properly (team-based online games come to mind, like world of warships, war thunder, paladins, csgo) and while they are just games, that doesn't give said person the excuse to act like spaz and be a general downer to everyone they meet in game or some people in general.

More complex formations and also AI are a must (although AI's based on response tress can only go so far), various things like voices (mentioned this in a few posts above yours) from the crew as you zoom in closer reacting to differnet 'micro-events' (ships firing, spotting ships, idle chat, boasting, fear, ship on fire etc.)

Plus greater freedom of structural placement and a greater number of IRL hulls as well as any 'paper' 'fantasy' and 'semi-complete' hulls that were made or ships designed but never got to see the day of light (poor sods like amagi and graf for example).

Frankly the designer at first should be to test the waters at first then expand upon the results after a few battles (or even just one) and adjust them or scrap them when needed (obviously causing problems not just financially but with spys going 'lol he scrapped his BB's so we get him now!' or something less cringe).

Too be honest what the devs have managed with such a small team is very, very good. Look at the let down that was mw5 and how it looked like one of my level design projects at uni lol.

For the next ships i want to see, Bismarck, KGV, Richy, Belfast, Fiji, Prinz Eugen, Graf spee, kuma, tone, fletcher and some other ships. Maybe battlecruiser lexi hull as well if at somepoint. We would probs need a 'Free Port Store' or something like steams workshop for player made assets and effects for ease of download and access.

 

[Teckelmaster]

It IS a game. And RamJB, how comes that every thread concludes in you swinging up the horse making everyone having to defend his or her own oppinion against something that primarily is YOUR oppinion alone (though you have fans). It is advertised as a realistic GAME not a realistic COMBAT SIMULATOR (though i admit i didnt check this, if i am wrong, i do no longer care).

This thread says „What do you wish?“ not „What might RamJB allow you to wish for?“ so we are extremely off topic, and that is what i want to say by this post! You can not hear us say „it is a game“? Tell you what: IT IS A GAME! And nothing is wrong with that.

And i do not misunderstand your post, i just do not allow my liberty of speech to be questioned like that, even if it means i overidentify with squatter currently.

Btw, Call of duty and medal of honor once were advertised as realistic ego shooters. The definition of realistic may therefor be a subject to personal preference. 
 

Sorry, Nick, im done offtopic and await your consequences for my misbehavior.

[RAMJB]

It is a game. Yes. That does not mean that games should be or not be what people imply by repeating the all-boring never-ending cliche of "it's a game" when they truly mean "it should give no care for whatever *I* don't want to be bothered with".

There are plenty of games out there. There's variety to choose between. Those who don't want to bothered by certain aspects of realism or historical fidelity have plenty of options of games to choose from to play, before jumping into one of the very few that's, by design, not intended to be what they want, to try turn it into YET another version of what THEY want. As if there wasn't enough of that.

You don't see me jumping into the WOWS forum, or any game like that, arguing from historical perspective added into the gameplay. Because it's not the intended goal of the game. It's not a secret, and that's perfectly fine, it'd be really a d*ck move for me to jump over there and begin campaigning for the game to be what's not supposed to be based only on my own personal preferences. It would be not OK.

Then why do we all have to act fine and dandy when people who like games like that come to one that's intended to be different and do just that?. 


Now hear me out here, because I'm not trying to impose my view of how things should be or not be in a given game based only on what I want. I'm giving arguments from the explicit point of view of what the game is been said (in announcements, steam page, main web page) intends to be, which happens to be exactly the kind of game I want and enjoy from a personal perspective. I'm pushing for the game goals to be achieved, not for my own desired to be implemented.

And I do that because the game intended goals include my personal interests. If they didn't I wouldn't be here - neither playing, nor giving any arguments about how it should be. I don't go to forums of games which aren't intended to suit my preferences and force-change them into exactly what I want. It's not my place to decide what a game should be - that's the decision of the designers when they begin working on a game with an intended goal. If that goal is not for my tastes I won't play it, but I won't go there trying to turn it into what I want either.

But that's exactly what the legion of "It's only a game" are doing here. This game's goal (the published one at least) is what it is. Yet people come here trying to turn it into a sci-fi show, instead of an immersive believable experience, which is what it supposedly aims for. And somehow I'm supposed to not answer to them?. Why?. 


Now let me make something clear here - I'm ok with anyone telling what they want and desire. By any means, everyone has an opinion and a right to voice it. I'm not here to shut anyone up. Not at all. And It's not my place, nor my intention, nor my purpose to tell them they should not say what they think. That I don't go to WOWS forums trying to turn that game into something that's not intended to be doesn't mean I don't respect the right of people with different tastes than mine coming here and saying what they want and think. I do. Completely. That I present arguments against their opinions doesn't mean I dont' respect opinions - it just means I disagree with them, and that I'm more than willing as to say why.

Debating someone else's opinions doesn't mean I somehow want to shut those opinions up, see.


But respect towards opinions and the right of sharing them goes both ways: Meaning that the same anyone should be OK with voicing his opinions here, then he should be OK with me answering with my own opinions about what he wants within the context of what this game is intended to be (Vs what they want it to be).

I'm insulting noone. I'm offending noone. I'm stating my preferences, because those match those that this game have as their goals. Otherwise I would not be here. The same I'm not in WOWS forums, the same I'm not in many other games forums. THeir goals are not of my interest, and is not my business to somehow try to coax those games' goals to suit my preferences.

So, again, WHY, then, when someone does just THAT here (which he's perfectly entitled to do, even if it's something I don't), am I supposed to just shut up and not openly say I completely disagree with him?. How's that offensive?. How's that innapropiate?. And WHY should I not do it?.


And yes, this is awfully offtopic by now, and is not the first time it happens. I'd love to hear your answers to my questions, though. Because it seems that somehow pushing for a game to achieve it's goal to represent reality and history in an immersive and believable way is somehow awfully wrong,but asking for every game to be turned into a sci-fi show is fine. And I'm interested in hearing out exactly WHY pushing for the later is acceptable, but defending the former is not.


PS: Many games have used PR and marketing about "Realistic" experiences when they were not, and nowhere near. Like the games you mention. That many companies have indulged in misguiding marketing in the past to hook up players who don't know better doesn't mean I think THIS developer belongs to that kind of scum-like group of developers. Because I don't - when they say they want to deliver a realistic, believable, immersive experience, I trust and believe them. I'm naive like that, you see.

Edited January 9, 2020 by RAMJB

[Teckelmaster]

Good.

My point is:

This thread is: „what do you want?“ not: „argue stuff others want“

I appreciate your vast knowledge, but this thread is by definition not the place to argue the wishes of others. And not even on the best knowledge about history.

I suggest we leave it at that or start a „how much realism is necessary or too much“ thread.

 

[Cdodders]

One thing I have found with the deck mounted torpedo tubes is that they tend to launch their torps even if the torps won't clear the hull, resulting in a 5 x tube launcher only launching 1 or 2 sometimes

[Nick Thomadis]

@RAMJB and @Teckelmaster

Peace! Please both calm down so the thread returns back to its original goal: to collect the very important opinion of all players regarding critical future improvements of the game. 
@Ram Your passion about the game is very much appreciated. Your opinion is noted. Can you please make another thread to discuss your generic views and other historical topics? I am sure a lot of interesting ideas and discussions can begin and continue from there.