Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

One of the things that was keeping me from making videos of the game was the fix to the excessive speeds (not to mention, at far too early stages) that you saw in the battles. Good news indeed, was really needed ;).


The other thing that's keeping me from making videos of the game is that there's no news about an overhaul of the armor layout system that produces ships were, for instance, the "armor belt" of the designer might aswell be swapped by "hull armor", magazines aren't always covered by your thickest armor, and has the effect of making the armored ends of ships so unrealistically armored that they make WarGaming-like "bow in" tactics look like a sensible representation of naval tactics.

Not to mention that it ruins the use of AP and force the use of HE when it makes no historical sense at all. Still waiting for some word about that side of the game to come. The current armor system is a gamebreaking feature for me, as much as the unrealistic speeds achievable were.


For the record, it's not that I'm not making videos because of a "if you don't introduce this thing I'm talking about, I won't make stuff of it", but because the excessive speeds and the ultra-simplistic armor models make up for...let's say, very unrealistic battles that I had a very hard time making constructive criticism about. There's just so many times you can say "this is because this is early stage, it'll get changed somewhere down the line" without becoming tremendously repetitive :D, and I only want to showcase the game when what's seen in the videos showcases it very positively for fans of the genre...

Because people like me, who have an interest in naval history, when they see a 41knot battlecruiser with a 13 inch armored belt that covers it from waterline to freeboard and laughs at you shooting AP at strong angles, they're going to raise an eyebrow and not feel very interested. And I want people to like what they see so they buy the game ;).

Edited by RAMJB
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello everyone, We hope you are all fine, healthy, strong and enjoy whatever makes you happy. We would like to share the content of the upcoming next update of Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. Here

Guys we had to add more fixes, for example this one: "Fixed issue that made big guns of smaller caliber to be grouped with secondary guns when player selected targets manually." So the update will c

iT KeEpS hApPeNiNg

Posted Images

On 5/7/2020 at 1:34 PM, Latur Husky said:

Nice one! I knew it would be big... 33 new hulls means many new cool designs of DD's. I can feel those crazy DD only battles now :D

 

 

You'd be surprised but even historically ships in formations often collided with each other... Game seems to perfectly reflect that.

*Sees a clip of RL ships sailing in formation* That's doctored footage! Ships are incapable of maintaining position relative to each other even in straight lines because captains only know two speeds: full ahead and full astern!

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, roachbeef said:

*Sees a clip of RL ships sailing in formation* That's doctored footage! Ships are incapable of maintaining position relative to each other even in straight lines because captains only know two speeds: full ahead and full astern!

my ships had a fit when i tried to get them to get out of each others way lol. DD's werent having it seemed more interested in tag.

i think a message should either pop-up or display in the message box (with a tick box saying global) saying 'mis-understood orders or wrong signals used etc'

would add some immersion to the gameplay in-general (although AI should be improved where possible).

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2020 at 4:39 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

All the existing, hundreds of hull variants accompanied by the new destroyers should be more than enough to cover the needs of the upcoming first campaign version, but we will continue to add more models in our next updates.

I would like to ask: When 1st April update was released you said that ironclads are added for the needs of the earliest phase of the campaing (and of course because it was 1st April) so don't we need some ironclads before campaing?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

3 hours ago, Aceituna said:

I would like to ask: When 1st April update was released you said that ironclads are added for the needs of the earliest phase of the campaing (and of course because it was 1st April) so don't we need some ironclads before campaing?

The game starts in 1890, so at that point the last of the ironclads (the general consensus among naval historians being that everything prior to the Royal soveraigns (the first true pre-dreadnoughts) are ironclads) are on the verge of entering service or are in service with majority of the worlds navies. If we want to have a decent start to the campaign most major navies will have some ironclad capital ships (BB's) in service at the games start date of 1890. This is bearing in mind of course that the first pre-dreadnoughts where not in service till the mid 1890's.

Edited by Fleet_Of_Oceans
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2020 at 5:05 PM, Hangar18 said:

I mean they're currently making WGs art dept. look like fools. For a dev team that probably consists of 4 tankmen and a dog, that is impressive. That's not even exaggerating, shell hits, bounces, ship detail, mag explosions, torpedo explosions, and water detail, all look better than what WG has. The only places i can think of where WG has done a better job visually is in camo patterns, and the flood/damaged engine effects. I'm not sure if WGs rendition of flood and engine damage are even realistic though, so that could be pointless. @Steeltrap not sure if you would know anything about that.

image.png.c7e0f44460c170202e16a87ff1c2c9fb.png

I think many people from WOWS are scarred mentally from that version of CVs. If it was implemented like RTW (but with a UI that isnt belligerent to the user) It would probably be fine. RTW is generally extremely unfriendly to the user, and i dont think many here have played it.

I honestly enjoyed their earlier version of CVs, required actual skill to play successfully

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fleet_Of_Oceans said:

 

The game starts in 1890, so at that point the last of the ironclads (the general consensus among naval historians being that everything prior to the Royal soveraigns (the first true pre-dreadnoughts) are ironclads) are on the verge of entering service or are in service with majority of the worlds navies. If we want to have a decent start to the campaign most major navies will have some ironclad capital ships (BB's) in service at the games start date of 1890. This is bearing in mind of course that the first pre-dreadnoughts where not in service till the mid 1890's.

Royal Sovereign entered RN service in 1892 if I recall. Other navies would have true pre-dreadnoughts enter service a little bit later of course, so in the timeframe of the game ironclads should be the primary warships for a few years at least. By 1890 the primary ironclads in use should be turreted ironclads such as HMS Devastation or monitors such as USS Amphitrite, which are similar enough in mechanics to true pre-dreadnoughts that it shouldn't be too hard to add hulls for those kinds of ships.

What will be more difficult to add will be legacy cruisers. Before 1890 almost all cruisers had full rigging for sail in addition to steam power.

Edited by Skoggatt
Link to post
Share on other sites

any plans to add custom grouping of guns, so you can have more than primary secondary, and target multiple ships?

or are ships generally unlikely to be able to target multiple ships at that time?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Quote

RAMJB:

One of the things that was keeping me from making videos of the game was the fix to the excessive speeds (not to mention, at far too early stages) that you saw in the battles. Good news indeed, was really needed ;).


The other thing that's keeping me from making videos of the game is that there's no news about an overhaul of the armor layout system that produces ships were, for instance, the "armor belt" of the designer might aswell be swapped by "hull armor", magazines aren't always covered by your thickest armor, and has the effect of making the armored ends of ships so unrealistically armored that they make WarGaming-like "bow in" tactics look like a sensible representation of naval tactics.

Not to mention that it ruins the use of AP and force the use of HE when it makes no historical sense at all. Still waiting for some word about that side of the game to come. The current armor system is a gamebreaking feature for me, as much as the unrealistic speeds achievable were.


For the record, it's not that I'm not making videos because of a "if you don't introduce this thing I'm talking about, I won't make stuff of it", but because the excessive speeds and the ultra-simplistic armor models make up for...let's say, very unrealistic battles that I had a very hard time making constructive criticism about. There's just so many times you can say "this is because this is early stage, it'll get changed somewhere down the line" without becoming tremendously repetitive :D, and I only want to showcase the game when what's seen in the videos showcases it very positively for fans of the genre...

Because people like me, who have an interest in naval history, when they see a 41knot battlecruiser with a 13 inch armored belt that covers it from waterline to freeboard and laughs at you shooting AP at strong angles, they're going to raise an eyebrow and not feel very interested. And I want people to like what they see so they buy the game ;).

Appreciate you for keeping to bang the drum on those issues. I'd like to see this game be as accurate as it can be. I remember Fighting Steel Project for it really working on accurate portrayal of gunnery, even with the limits of its graphics.

Edited by skg02
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/7/2020 at 5:39 PM, Nick Thomadis said:
  • Turbine engine horse power is more pronounced according to type, so that early dreadnoughts and battlecruisers are not so fast compared to more advanced ships.
  • Diesel engines rebalanced to reflect better their bonuses. Diesel engines will be more important in campaign, but now can be useful in missions too, offering more reliable and cost-effective power plants.

Any plans for gas turbines and combined propulsions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, IronKaputt said:

Any plans for gas turbines and combined propulsions?

Those are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay post-battleship era technologies.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Fleet_Of_Oceans said:

 

The game starts in 1890, so at that point the last of the ironclads (the general consensus among naval historians being that everything prior to the Royal soveraigns (the first true pre-dreadnoughts) are ironclads) are on the verge of entering service or are in service with majority of the worlds navies. If we want to have a decent start to the campaign most major navies will have some ironclad capital ships (BB's) in service at the games start date of 1890. This is bearing in mind of course that the first pre-dreadnoughts where not in service till the mid 1890's.

If I remember correctly, the dev said that we will get the first ironclads (for every nation maybe) For example: HMS Warrior, Gloire, etc...

Can't wait for them. Also this update is very good. Finally I can design more DDs.

Keep up the good work! 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

If I remember correctly, the dev said that we will get the first ironclads (for every nation maybe) For example: HMS Warrior, Gloire, etc...

Can't wait for them. Also this update is very good. Finally I can design more DDs.

Keep up the good work! 🙂

Oh?

We might be getting this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warrior

I would be fine with that, since then we can witness the transitions from sail and iron to steam and iron to coal to steel to oil etc.

Would make the game more immersive as well, plus a lot of peeps are forgetting the ability to have a mega campaign combinging ultimate admirals age of sail and dreadnoughts.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Cptbarney said:

Oh?

We might be getting this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Warrior

I would be fine with that, since then we can witness the transitions from sail and iron to steam and iron to coal to steel to oil etc.

Would make the game more immersive as well, plus a lot of peeps are forgetting the ability to have a mega campaign combinging ultimate admirals age of sail and dreadnoughts.

There never was a mention about Ironclads, they do not fit the era this game should cover anyways. By 1900 there were no Ironclads in service with major Nations.

I can only imagine that there was talk about this HMS Warrior: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/UQzsqoivyZzd-ngp6CUFd8Y7glMhL8oMsXm6LTSuY-c3V-0NFsuqpeErbHCcCcKvuLvJfznK5E7DGMOjBBmsBmbEwmAll1etYcOyXWsF1Xkb3Llny9hkBW6t5hDdSkwCakbKzjE

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Wurstsalat said:

There never was a mention about Ironclads, they do not fit the era this game should cover anyways. By 1900 there were no Ironclads in service with major Nations.

I can only imagine that there was talk about this HMS Warrior: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/proxy/UQzsqoivyZzd-ngp6CUFd8Y7glMhL8oMsXm6LTSuY-c3V-0NFsuqpeErbHCcCcKvuLvJfznK5E7DGMOjBBmsBmbEwmAll1etYcOyXWsF1Xkb3Llny9hkBW6t5hDdSkwCakbKzjE

Yeah but the era can be changed regardless, not sure why everyone gets iffy whenever someone mentions starting the game around 1870 etc. Especially since we have the first two pre-cussor ironclads to the dreadnoughts USS monitor and the other one.

Also you seem to forget this isn't based on historical accuracy to the letter, but more on reality with the ability to create your own historical alternate situations in the campaign.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, RAMJB said:

no news about an overhaul of the armor layout system that produces ships were, for instance, the "armor belt" of the designer might aswell be swapped by "hull armor", magazines aren't always covered by your thickest armor, and has the effect of making the armored ends of ships so unrealistically armored that they make WarGaming-like "bow in" tactics look like a sensible representation of naval tactics.

This. I wonder if we'll see armor overhaul ever.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

There never was a mention about Ironclads, they do not fit the era this game should cover anyways. By 1900 there were no Ironclads in service with major Nations.

1. Campaing starts in 1890 not in 1900.

2. In 1890 Ironclads were part of some navies.

3. When Ironclads were released devs said that they added them to cover earliest stage of the campaing.

Edited by Aceituna
Forgot wo quote
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...