Planning of next updates

[monbvol]

I think for me it boils down to:

-I would love some more smaller ship options in terms of hulls and components to play with.

-Likewise I think many components do need re-sized so you can fit more parts in combination together.

-Absolutely would be down for a true custom battle option that gives us far more options for controlling the variables.  It would make testing many mechanics much easier and much more reliable.

-To get better feedback in battle maybe develop a damage overlay filter so it is easier to see what is damaged/broken.

-Likewise someway to see the status of individual weapon mounts.

-Instead of torpedo loads being +/-x% change it to a slider or number entry of number of reloads that goes down to 0 so all you have is what is in the tubes themselves and that is it.

-So certain treaty era CAs can be built I would alter the minimum armor belt thickness of the modern CA hulls so that you can go below 5"/127mm.  Pensacola as an example had 4"/102mm main belt and the York class had even less.

-Agree with previous comments about needing to re-work HE and AP more so that AP is more relevant as HE is just too good in far too many situations.

[Hellstrike]

3 hours ago, arkhangelsk said:

Of these five, I'll say the light CL hull seems like the most worthy addition. For the heavy CL hull, I question why you can't just use the heavy CA hull since it is almost the same weight range (and really I question if there was never a treaty whether anyone would really put 6 inch guns as the main armament on a hull of over 10000 tons).

As for the "all centerline cruiser", what you are saying is that the thing would have eight mounting positions (either designated or allowed). How do you propose to stop players (including AI) from slapping on triples and giving themselves twenty-four 6-inchers on the hull? (To a smaller extent, this also applies to your destroyer since we can already put 12 guns on the thing which IIRC is more than any destroyer in history and the added mounting point will increase it to fifteen).

Just in case anyone is wondering, you can put triples on your light cruiser as of 1925. Here are the single and triple 6 inch guns.

 

Yes, they are of the same length, and the triple only about 10 pixels wider. How can you justify a mount that would accept the single and reject the triple?

I think that you're forgetting about the fact that most nations did not have triple turrets in those calibres, and even the British one (found aboard some battle cruisers after WWI) was not a good system because the traverse was too slow. I'm not sure if that will eventually be reflected in this game, but it remains likely.

On top of that, they required more crew (not implemented yet) and were more expensive, both initially and to maintain. Displacement/weight is the other limiting factor. Not to mention that this much top weight would make the ship very unstable and therefore reduce accuracy and the benefit of the additional barrels (they already are less accurate by default AND take longer to reload). The amount of shells on target might not change significantly, despite the additional dakka.

And the width of turrets has been criticised a lot, especially for smaller calibres. The double looks fine, the single mounts are quite roomy and the crew wouldn't fit in the triple one, or would be very uncomfortable (reducing effectiveness).

[Mhtsos]

My priorities are:

1. An armour model that makes sense. Now the ships are just armoured boxes. I would like to see real ships, not tanks in water.
2. Damage model. The bulkhead number is the single most significant factor that will determine if the ship is going to be a damage sponge or a tin. DDs soak hundreds of 5-6" if they have maxed bulkheads. Also, I almost never seen a ship lost to extensive fire -even if it burns from end-to-end, all due to the aforementioned OP bulkhead modelling.
3. Accuracy and the factors that determine it. Now is too abstract and in many cases it doesn't make sense.
4. Shells that are actually modelled. Now they are only decorative and just pass-through ships that are not the target.
5. More flexibility on ship design. Even if it is only for player. 

|

I believe the above are the most important issues with the game that have to be solved before we go on the campaign.

[RAMJB]

2 hours ago, Mhtsos said:

Also, I almost never seen a ship lost to extensive fire -even if it burns from end-to-end, all due to the aforementioned OP bulkhead modelling.

They're rare but they happen. And that they're rare is good. Other than carriers (for quite evident reasons of having to be loaded to the brim with avgas), no big warship was lost due to fire since Tsushima (And even there, it wasn't really fire what killed them) and up to the end of the big gun era.

[arkhangelsk]

On 1/12/2020 at 5:03 PM, Hellstrike said:

I think that you're forgetting about the fact that most nations did not have triple turrets in those calibres, and even the British one (found aboard some battle cruisers after WWI) was not a good system because the traverse was too slow.

The Japanese had 6 inch. More to the point, while you can get away with countries getting different hulls with subtly different characteristics, you can't very well design the game depriving certain powers of something as obvious as 6 inch triples.

Quote

On top of that, they required more crew (not implemented yet) and were more expensive, both initially and to maintain. Displacement/weight is the other limiting factor. Not to mention that this much top weight would make the ship very unstable and therefore reduce accuracy and the benefit of the additional barrels (they already are less accurate by default AND take longer to reload). The amount of shells on target might not change significantly, despite the additional dakka.

Well. Look at the following stat cards I just took off the game (It's the same ship with the same settings, max displacement 5500t, standard now 4264 vs 4411 - I just put one fore and one aft, trying to get the weight imbalance as low as possible for each turret):

 

 

Yes, there is a difference. Overall, the triple is about twice the rate and throws about twice the shells out per minute than the single for a 36.6% increase in cost and 66% more men. It is about 95% as accurate in its base and there are some small extra penalties in a stat box few people would ever read. The triple looks like an actual turret. The single looks like a cheapie gunhouse.

How many people do you think will be deterred from putting triples based on these stat boxes?

Edited April 5, 2020 by arkhangelsk
Recover quota by deleting attachments

[DougToss]

Turrets could definitely see some work, especially if we are going to see quads. I think RTW did a good job with the weight, cost and penalties of the different turrets as well as how different hulls can accommodate different turrets and when the tech to do so becomes available. Having said that RTW also suffers from turrets sharing the same visual footprint:

As you can see, the quad 15 inch guns are displayed as about the same size as a single 6 or 7 inch gun:

[James Cornelius]

Perhaps this has already been mentioned, but I would suggest the ability to manipulate the hull somewhat. For example, lengthening the hull was proven to have a positive impact on speed, and would functionally increase both the total tonnage of the ship as well as the available tonnage (some kind of sliding scale). This would allow players greater customization as they create their ships and open the door to more interesting trade offs between speed, armor, tonnage, etc.

[Teckelmaster]

I start to get curious considering the number of factors the devs implemented in calculating the stats of ships and hulls and the impact of draft, beam, length, centre of gravity and how „physical“ this model actually is. I mean, the number if formulae and experiences the shipdesigners used in the beginning of the 20th century was surely limited?! How accurate are the ship designs we currently can do and where are we going to get to? In terms of length, draft, beam, speed and consequently the relation between all of those?

Can anybody recommend a source where i can find a basic introduction into these fields of battleship design?

[CaptainHT]

I love this game, It is something I have always wanted for the longest time. However, there is something to note. AP has an unusually high bounce rate, and HE is kind of OP still. One thing I would like added is the German H-Class Battleship Hulltype, granting access to ships like Bismarck and Grosser Kurfust. I would also like to see a Hull like the Dunkerque and Jean Bart. But so far, you guys are doing great! keep it up.

[The Fundamentalist]

Add crew (and dynamic damage control),  ship capsizing, and the ability to order automatic torpedo avoidance via the squadron control interface. 

Also, the missions should be refined to incorporate naval tactics and strategy in combat as well as in the shipyard. 

[Skeksis]

@Nick Thomadis, aren't you missing something!

Installed 1931

A quick look through the topic and so far no one has put up spotter planes yet!

Edited January 14, 2020 by Skeksis

[Hellstrike]

Spotter planes or even primitive fighters were used early on in naval warfare, no one is denying that. But their implementation will be tricky because you need to program AA as well, scaling planes and introduce guns below 2 inches.
They will be added eventually (the secondary gun icon while building a DD already shows an AA gun), but I don't think that spotting planes HAVE to be added before the campaign (that's what this thread is about after all).

 

[Celtic]

To echo what others have said, we as the player/chief naval architect/admiral of the fleet, need more latitude in creating ships. Right now it appears we're limited to creating a functional if ineffective ship with a list of preset parts in a given tonnage range. Arguably this prevents us from turning around and going doing what the British Navy did with something like Dreadnought. We don't have the ability to buck the current trends and norms and create a ship that is incredible *or* incredibly bad. 

What I mean by this is that we should be able to play with the sliders and hulls with out arbitrary limits. I *should* be able to fiddle with things to go "Okay, if I have a low free board, offset by lengthening the hull and a wide beam I can fit 12" turrets on something that looks like a cheese board floating at sea. and have a low 'detectibility' as well making me quite hard to hit. This sounds awsome right? well then I should take it out, and find myself self swamped and flooding by the wake of someone swimming near by. 

Why is this a good thing? For every Dreadnought we've had in History, there's been an HMS Victoria or the Vasa (mounting a heavy broadside too low in the hull so the gun ports flooded).  (which on that note - can we have the 1890's Hood and Victoria and all those as parts? And Ram bows?)  It's far more interesting, and in a backwards way fun for a player to find that they've created something so horrifically ineffective because they got wrapped into the idea of putting the biggest gun they could float out there or making themselves hard to hit without considering the fact that they're still in a dynamic environment that doesn't need to penetrate your armour to sink you. 

As it stands, and what I mentioned before is that no matter what we as the player attempt to do currently, we're still constrained to making a ship that will always be 'functional' let us be as incompetent possible?

[Skeksis]

4 hours ago, Hellstrike said:

Spotter planes or even primitive fighters were used early on in naval warfare, no one is denying that. But their implementation will be tricky because you need to program AA as well, scaling planes and introduce guns below 2 inches.
They will be added eventually (the secondary gun icon while building a DD already shows an AA gun), but I don't think that spotting planes HAVE to be added before the campaign (that's what this thread is about after all).

 

I assume campaign progression is very finely balance, so if aircraft (spotter planes) aren’t introduced now they probably never will, so yes it’s ‘critical’ (as per topic) for those who seek them.

Alpha is for testing game mechanics, shouldn't we be testing ALL fundamental mechanics such as aircraft (if they are under consideration). These mechanics would be better off tested now before beta content or steam release and before the campaign gets too far advance, else it’s likely to never be a go!

Edited January 14, 2020 by Skeksis

[RAMJB]

1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

so if aircraft (spotter planes) aren’t introduced now they probably never will

The most immediate precedent of a game with a thematic like this one's proves that assumption is completely incorrect.

Air power is an extremely complex thing to introduce and you can't put in some aspects of it while completely ignoring the rest. RTW did a good job in introducing new things as it did - making sure the foundation of the game (ship design, tactical combat, campaign dynamics, etc) were working properly and optimally, before messing with, and opening up, the huge can of worms air power means for a game like this.

I expect the development team of UA:D does a similar thing. Rushing up new features just for the sake of having them always means big trouble. I totally expect the game, on it's initial release, to not bother with planes at all. And I'd fully support that decision if it's really that way. Whatever other alternative entails introducing yet another highly complex layer to an already complex game, before that game is settled down enough to take the new features.

TL:DR: let's get a proper, immersive, believable and WORKING game with surface units first. Planes can come up at a much later stage, once everything else is working as it should.

[RAMJB]

1 hour ago, Celtic said:

To echo what others have said, we as the player/chief naval architect/admiral of the fleet, need more latitude in creating ships. Right now it appears we're limited to creating a functional if ineffective ship with a list of preset parts in a given tonnage range.

I'm not sure if the idea has been ditched or not, but I'm going to assume it's not, given that the video I'm about to talk about is still up and working in steam.

In steam the trailer video for UA:D shows a designer where hulls themselves are built by the player, in a modular fashion, by choosing different pieces and placing them on the builder. This would mean a huge dynamic and complex (And amazing) designer system when you'd be tailor-building your ship's hull and superstructure out of pieces, to make it exactly the ship you want it to be without any kind of limitation.

I'm guessing that if that video is still up and functional (and it is), that's still the end goal of the designer, the different hulls being added progressively at this stage just being "packed up" parts or "prefabricated" hulls made up by the pieces we'll later have access to.

I'm not sure if I'm right or not, maybe some developer insight can clear that part up. In the meantime what's in here already while having it's limits and not giving all the freedom I would want, is still more than enough to be engaging and interesting enough to have me hooked to the screen for a long time just toying with the designer and seeing what kind of stuff I can get done with it.

[Teckelmaster]

I think that it is not possible to leave out air power at all, if this game is to be historically adequate or correct or however we call it. But i think that the implementation of air power later in development process somehow resembles history, as naval warfare development went pretty far, and then (more or less) out of a sudden everything was  obsolete with aircraft carriers ruling the waves. If cv‘s are introduced later on, we will basically relive that. 
So i think it would be appropriate. I have no idea whatsoever how airpower could or should be implemented, not gameplaywise or programmingwise. I just know, that i would love the game to be historically incorrect by leaving planes and subs completely aside, as i fear our ships would suffer an equal fate as those in reality. Being assets to aircraft carriers, mostly.

[RAMJB]

Just now, Teckelmaster said:

I think that it is not possible to leave out air power at all, if this game is to be historically adequate or correct or however we call it.

Once more, there are precedents of this. Granted that the original iteration of RTW had a "soft" end at 1925, but you could keep on playing after that for a long while, and most players did, up to 1950. Nobody really cared that planes weren't present, because everyone understood why they weren't present.

If it worked there I don't see how that is not possible here too :).

[Teckelmaster]

Oh, do not get my hopes running

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, RAMJB said:

The most immediate precedent of a game with a thematic like this one's proves that assumption is completely incorrect.

Well you see I don’t think so.

Laying the foundations first will save the Dev’s a whole lot of headaches in the future, headaches that might negate future development. And yes that is my “assumption”.

2 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Air power is an extremely complex thing to introduce...

Now you’ve exaggerated to “air power” when I’ve only been highlighting “spotter planes’.

And as ‘spotter planes’ see this example…

With this we would be able to have more complete and historical ship designs and maybe some improved campaign tactics too.

Edited January 14, 2020 by Skeksis

[monbvol]

You can count me in the camp of I'd like spotter planes and even eventually air power but for the immediate future I consider it a feature that can and probably should be added later with more fundamental features needing addressed first.

Which brings me to an additional suggestion that I'd love to see that I can't believe slipped my mind.

More scripting for the Naval Academy missions.  I'd love to see them be more informative and useful to learn from but to do that I think we need to see the same AI ships(both friendly and hostile) starting in the same positions at the same ranges rather than seeing different designs every time.  Maybe even script participating nations, at least for the AI, but that only really depends on how much effort is to be put into national flavor.  Plus this would be a good way to make sure for the campaign the AI doesn't just keep randomly generating ships instead of using designs it should already have in service.

[Hangar18]

On 1/12/2020 at 12:24 AM, arkhangelsk said:

How do you propose to stop players (including AI) from slapping on triples and giving themselves twenty-four 6-inchers on the hull?

you let them eat a fat debuff from having a ton of pitch, weight, and more magazine space.

[SiWi]

13 hours ago, RAMJB said:

Once more, there are precedents of this. Granted that the original iteration of RTW had a "soft" end at 1925, but you could keep on playing after that for a long while, and most players did, up to 1950. Nobody really cared that planes weren't present, because everyone understood why they weren't present.

If it worked there I don't see how that is not possible here too :).

sure it is technically possible, as well it would be possible to stop guns after 15 inches.

But it would lessen what the game would be in a magnitude. 

 

Why aim for a medcore outcome when the game could be turn great?

I mean RTW would be the only standard you hold this game to, then you also "can" skip any graphically improvements.

[arkhangelsk]

8 minutes ago, SiWi said:

Why aim for a medcore outcome when the game could be turn great?

I mean RTW would be the only standard you hold this game to, then you also "can" skip any graphically improvements.

The quality of the game would be determined much more by the solidity of its core mechanics than chasing too many hares and getting none.

It sometimes seem like the only players on this forum who even consider the logistics of improvements a little bit are RamJB and me. Otherwise, it seems to be continuous wish lists with little regard to prioritization or the basic fact they don't come free. Any hints to that effect is responded to by snide comments that seem to glibly assume the development schedule can be stretched out to infinity.

Let me adapt a saying from military science:

An amateur thinks of game features. A professional thinks of the man-hours and other costs it would take to implement said features.

[SiWi]

2 minutes ago, arkhangelsk said:

The quality of the game would be determined much more by the solidity of its core mechanics than chasing too many hares and getting none.

It sometimes seem like the only players on this forum who even consider the logistics of improvements a little bit are RamJB and me. Otherwise, it seems to be continuous wish lists with little regard to prioritization or the basic fact they don't come free. Any hints to that effect is responded to by snide comments that seem to glibly assume the development schedule can be stretched out to infinity.

Let me adapt a saying from military science:

An amateur thinks of game features. A professional thinks of the man-hours and other costs it would take to implement said features.

oh the arrogance.

Really? You think your and RamJB are the only one thinking about the logistics? 

Really?

Are you so full of yourself ?

Everyone acknowledges that implementing Planes isn't easy (thou terms of Spotter planes they fairly are), the only difference is that some people view the Devs as cable enough to overcome this, like many Dev's before them.

You approach would lead at the most logical conclusion to add nothing new to the game (new crews, moral, different damage mechanic) because oh no how should it ever be possible to be done.