Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

The flash fire animation is pretty neat, I like it a lot.

The new academy missions are strange. Who knew naval engagement including a lots of tin can and torpedoes would lead to a whole new world of RNG. I'm curently struggling with Mission Impossible and Torpedo Bonsai.

I like the new detailed UI. It's not much, but clearer numbers display is always a nice addition.

The soundtrack is okay, if a bit generic. The ambiant parts are definitely better than the action one. I will not nitpick too much about something so trivial though.

And the ducks. The Ducks are here \o/

 

4 minutes ago, Tousansons said:

 

I just need torpedo bonsai in my garden.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Finally, the anticipated new update is available for you! Read everything about it in our blog! https://www.dreadnoughts.ultimateadmiral.com/post/alpha-7-gameplay-optimizations ==Restart your g

Guys when we will able to save design in CUSTOM BATTLE ? It's quite time consuming not having this feature yet. When ? So everytime i/we don't lose 20-30 min because of the design. WHEN ? please is an

Hello everyone,  We have just deployed a hotfix including the following: Alpha-6 v73 Fixed a rare bug which happened when you clicked on "secondary guns mode" on a ship with main guns, torpe

Posted Images

Well I guess we can call it a Japanese destroyer update. there are some neat parts added and hulls, but I've noticed that you've removed ability to rotate towers. I kinda get that it could be used to cheese a bit an extra barbette or two (if you lucky), but this means you can't make something what looks a bit like Ise-class or other ww1/post ww1 Japanese dreadnoughts anymore, until you add dedicated hull and towers for them of course. I really liked taking on of those Yamato superstructure like second tower and then rotating it and connecting to the main tower so they looked like a single long superstructure on a cruiser, sometimes I was also doing this to achieve very specific look of the ship as well.

Well I hope next update like this one will include more cruiser parts and hulls since right now this field feels a bit empty.

oh and that new ammo-rack explosion? It's not an ammo-rack explosion its a World War 1 era ballistic missile being launched!
screen_1920x1080_2020-05-13_19-56-49.thumb.png.fa8896e6fd586785567192cbe8e4cf2b.png

btw from what ship are those new 4 inch Japanese turrets comes from?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aceituna said:

Well, i would like to have them too but i think that there Are much more  important features to work at alpha 7.

(but of course it depends on devs  preference s)

I say its still very important considering, the french BBs were all about quad gun turrets.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So, here's my take. I like the flash fire, it adds a bit more realism. It may need tweaked over time to modulate the frequency (to many/not enough) vs the modules/armor/ammo type. However, and this is a BIG however, since the current armor model leaves the fore and aft (A and Y in most cases) protected only be the belt and deck EXTENDED armor, not the main belt/deck, these will happen WAY to often. I just did an "Invincible" as close to historic as possible (no 4" deck mount OR casemates available?) and took 2 hits, one in the stern belt extended, and one in the bow belt extended, both caused Flash Fires. The stern hit only took out the Y turret and ~70% of my flotation. The bow hit took out A, then spread to P and killed me in about 20 seconds, which, in and of itself is fine, but these hits should have been on 6" of armor plus 2" of deck curve (at an angle, so ~3.2 - 3.5" effective), not 4" of 'extended belt" armor.

There are 3 rows of 7 'boxes' that the ship is broken in to. The best I can tell, the current armor layout, regardless of how you actually set up the ship, is that the 2 'boxes'  on either end are "extended" and the 3 in the middle are "main". The problem is, almost EVERY ship puts the A and Y turret position in that "extended" area. The "main" belt should go from the front of A barbette to  the  end of Y barbette, and grow or shrink  as you move the turrets. This  would effect weight, closer together = shorter belt, but also  firing arcs would suffer. So, it's a trade off,  which is great.

I'm new  to the forum, and only been playing the game for a little over a month, so if this has been discussed before (and I'm sure it probably has) excuse my ignorance, please point me to any relevant threads, and please tell me this is something that will be addressed at some point.

Don't even get me started on deck armor....

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, HusariuS said:

Gh1x3g4.png

 

Few updates more and maybe I'm gonna be able to build one of my favorite IJN Cruisers :3

You can actually build many of IJN Cruisers. Try different hull xD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy all the new possibilities to design, especially the vastly increased roster of DDs and CLs. The small ones really needed some love.

That being said I still am disappointed with the missions. Particularly the Jutland one. When I hear Jutland I think of the clash of battlecruisers and battleships. To then only be allowed to design the destroyers feels like bait and switch. I am aware that Jutland is a place, rather than just the event, but the Battle of Jutland is still the biggest post Age of Sails captialship battle that ever happened on this planet bar none and thus the name carries certain expectations.
What I think of the excessive difficulty of the new missions I already said before...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

the Battle of Jutland is still the biggest post Age of Sails captialship battle that ever happened on this planet

I know this Is not really point of the comment but Leyte was bigger.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Latur Husky said:

You can actually build many of IJN Cruisers. Try different hull xD

I guess you have misunderstood me, I said "one of my favorite IJN Cruisers" and as far as I know, currently we are not able to build Takao-class due to the lack of proper superstructure.

Or Towers if you prefer this term.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To super super super Nick and the team.

Very nice light cruiser hull shape and barbette too, you guy's must really like your jobs. 😎 

om3A8Wa.png

The campaign is going to be glorious!!!  

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

Nah quads the most important fam, bow before quads pls.

That and 20-inchers. Even WoWs decided to give Musashi her second remodel. Me jelly.

We also need some faster fuzes for dat overpen queen. Fuze tech tree is pretty much a must anyway.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

some good additions to the game. BUT, this isn't what the game needs. the game has some serious issues which have been mentioned a million times now and STILL they are being ignored.

since my game got wiped recently I had to start again, ive been TRYING to do the US super battleship (among others) ive just spent a 1000 shells on one ship and it STILL isn't dropping below 62%. the issue is the compartment damage, IT DOESNT WORK!!! then the enemy runs, making it impossible to sink them. this has been mentioned to you many many times and still it remains the same despite numerous alpha updates.

I see patch after patch and all I see is minor fixes and no fixes for the real major issues in the game like the above.

the game has huge potential, but its being massively let down at the moment by major issues that don't seem to be getting any attention

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Aceituna said:

I know this Is not really point of the comment but Leyte was bigger.

Might have misworded it a bit: I meant biggest capital-ship battle of all times.

Jutland had 44 battleships (dreadnought), 14 battlecruisers and 6 pre-dreadnoughts.
Leyte had 19 battleships.

Besides Jutland was more of a continuous fight, or 3 fights in quick succession if you will, while Leyte was a sum of many smaller-scale engagements, as can be seen by how the "battle of Leyte" is subdivided into several other battles, like Sibuyan Sea and Surigao Strait.

But if I got a mission called "Battle of Leyte" and only got to design the destroyers, I'd be similarly disappointed.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Norbert Sattler said:

Might have misworded it a bit: I meant biggest capital-ship battle of all times.

Jutland had 44 battleships (dreadnought), 14 battlecruisers and 6 pre-dreadnoughts.
Leyte had 19 battleships.

Besides Jutland was more of a continuous fight, or 3 fights in quick succession if you will, while Leyte was a sum of many smaller-scale engagements, as can be seen by how the "battle of Leyte" is subdivided into several other battles, like Sibuyan Sea and Surigao Strait.

But if I got a mission called "Battle of Leyte" and only got to design the destroyers, I'd be similarly disappointed.

Ok, I get it now. I totally agree with your description of Leyte.

But aren't carriers capital ships? I thought so until now but after your comment i am not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

Ok, I get it now. I totally agree with your description of Leyte.

But aren't carriers capital ships? I thought so until now but after your comment i am not sure.

Yes they are.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Aceituna said:

Ok, I get it now. I totally agree with your description of Leyte.

But aren't carriers capital ships? I thought so until now but after your comment i am not sure.

Ye carriers are capitals ships as well, especially, fleet, armoured, heavy (if a class like that existed) and supers.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I like many of the changes here but protection, gunnery, propulsion and damage still need systemic reworks and not just more features.

For example, I really like the flash fires but the armour modelling is still very simple and belt and turret armour is not very granular. Belts are huge, extending from just below the deck to what seems to be the waterline, and that shapes how protection works, the same is true for turret armour. 

I'm not saying that the bulkheads and layout of every hoist, magazine and turret be modelled, but that the flash fire feature will work much better when damage, damage control, protection and gunnery are more fleshed out. The game still doesn't really model why British BCs exploded at Jutland, at least not until ballistics,  penetration, turret roof armour, shell handling procedures and something modelling crew complacency or the tradeoffs of safety-vs-speed is modelled. 

Lots of steps in the right direction though. 

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like the direction the game is going, but I do hope that an armor rework is one of the next changes. I don't think the campaign should be released before an armor rework, since changing armor will so drastically upset the balance of everything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...