Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum
Nick Thomadis

>>>Alpha-6 Feedback<<<

Recommended Posts

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 importat feature. I keep not understanding the devs about this, why implementing a save design system in damn "Naval Accademy" and not in "Custom Battle" ?

Edited by Donluca95
  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Donluca95 said:

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 importat feature. I keep not understanding the devs about this, why implementing a save design system in damn "Naval Accademy" and not in "Custom Battle" ?

Probably the best QOL improvement possible

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/18/2020 at 8:27 PM, Jatzi said:

It sounds like you didn't get a flash fire but a standard magazine hit. I guess they're kinda the same thing but you know magazine explosions can and did destroy ships outright, i.e. Hood. So what's the problem? Turret dmged doesn't mean turret destroyed or magazine penetrated. In point of fact you have to penetrate the hull to get to the magazine so messing up the turrets means nothing. I don't think turret armor extends to the barbette, hence why there's a separate barbette thing. That doesn't make a ton of sense but yeah. 

It was a direct flash fire. Happened a second time already in the "Modern battleship" mission. It doesn't display as ammo detonation, but as a "flash fire". The effect is EXTREMELY random, even going so far as to be a minor inconvenience on the level of "Turret destroyed" at times while other times it nukes the ship as hard as a magazine explosion without even spreading to adjacent guns

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Donluca95 said:

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 importat feature. I keep not understanding the devs about this, why implementing a save design system in damn "Naval Accademy" and not in "Custom Battle" ?

 

3 hours ago, Hangar18 said:

Probably the best QOL improvement possible

Proper saves will come with campaign. Current save system is somewhat under-done indeed!

  • Like 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Maty83 said:

It was a direct flash fire. Happened a second time already in the "Modern battleship" mission. It doesn't display as ammo detonation, but as a "flash fire". The effect is EXTREMELY random, even going so far as to be a minor inconvenience on the level of "Turret destroyed" at times while other times it nukes the ship as hard as a magazine explosion without even spreading to adjacent guns

I think there should be internal fires that if the magazines are comprimised spreads rapidly (especially with poor DC) and ends detonating and blowing a portion of the ship up. Could also have the ability to render a turret unuseable rather than always popping it off (that effect should be rarer in my opinion), but those things will come when we get a significant upgrade and overhaul to the current armour system, which should feature external and internal plus having more complex geomatry to suit more complex damage outcomes and effects.

Mind the team is only like 3-5 peeps so this will take sometime to do however.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It definitely seems like Flash Fires needs to be reduced in frequency from all the posts. Not knowing what the rate is currently, I would say it probably needs to be 1/4 of the rate now. The rest should simply destroy the turret which is more common than a flash fire in the turret. That would probably bring the catastrophic detonations in line as well.  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like another QOL we need is the ability to select our nations in Naval Academy. I have no interest seeing anything other than a White Ensign flying on my ship, so I go back to the mission select menu and try to reset the nation about 20 times before I get the one I want.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I feel like another QOL we need is the ability to select our nations in Naval Academy. I have no interest seeing anything other than a White Ensign flying on my ship, so I go back to the mission select menu and try to reset the nation about 20 times before I get the one I want.

A ship name generator would also be cool too, add some names too the pool and it will remember them, maybe even create things similar to a playlist. Also sorting hulls by year would be good as well, gives us a better idea of whats new and whats old when you have loads of hulls (even if its only a few years apart).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts was featured in a Wargamer editorial. Grogs are excited for this title, and I hope the "no fun brigade" is listened to as development continues. Wargamers may not be a huge market, but they are a loyal one. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
will there be battles near the coasts?
near coast and island with fort
and battles in gulf and strait like gibraltar, marmara sea, the channel....
with or without costal battery support
or  small vessel like pt boat support ?
 
for exemple to remake the battle of dardanelles during   WW1
 
 
Edited by liaxelot
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, liaxelot said:
will there be battles near the coasts?
near coast and island with fort
and battles in gulf and strait like gibraltar, marmara sea, the channel....
with or without costal battery support
or  small vessel like pt boat support ?
 
for exemple to remake the battle of dardanelles during   WW1
 
 

Well if you look on steam for Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail you can see on photos some land battles going on, I would expect something similar in Dreadnought, or potentially even more.

 I remember there was one fight during WW2 near Baltic Sea where a small group of German forces was couldn't retreat fast enough and they were cutoff. They stumbled upon a guarded village which was guarded by T-34/85s when best tanks they had were 2 or 3 Tiger 1s, luckily for them they had some support from destroyer or a cruiser near coast which provide very effective artillery barrage which managed to take out guarding units and let them to crush soviet forces in the village and continue to retreat.

I would wish to see something similar taking place in the camping like this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, arekP64 said:

Well if you look on steam for Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail you can see on photos some land battles going on, I would expect something similar in Dreadnought, or potentially even more.

 I remember there was one fight during WW2 near Baltic Sea where a small group of German forces was couldn't retreat fast enough and they were cutoff. They stumbled upon a guarded village which was guarded by T-34/85s when best tanks they had were 2 or 3 Tiger 1s, luckily for them they had some support from destroyer or a cruiser near coast which provide very effective artillery barrage which managed to take out guarding units and let them to crush soviet forces in the village and continue to retreat.

I would wish to see something similar taking place in the camping like this.

There is a difference between depicting a few battalions of infantry in Age of Sail and representing a real amphibious operation like the Gallipoli Campaign, which involved nearly a half-million allied troops. 

Considering that naval gunfire support could be delivered from over 20km away, you would be looking at the largest wargame of all time. 

I would say that abstracted operations and support are important for the campaign, and could generate interesting battles such as "lay mines in this channel to interdict enemy logistics" or "sortie at night to disrupt enemy transports", but asking for any kind of fidelity (RTW2+Combat Mission/Graviteam played on the same map) is impossible. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, DougToss said:

There is a difference between depicting a few battalions of infantry in Age of Sail and representing a real amphibious operation like the Gallipoli Campaign, which involved nearly a half-million allied troops. 

Considering that naval gunfire support could be delivered from over 20km away, you would be looking at the largest wargame of all time. 

I would say that abstracted operations and support are important for the campaign, and could generate interesting battles such as "lay mines in this channel to interdict enemy logistics" or "sortie at night to disrupt enemy transports", but asking for any kind of fidelity (RTW2+Combat Mission/Graviteam played on the same map) is impossible. 

You could downgrade the graphics like the Wargame series, which has artillery and ships fire from dozens of miles away from each other. I, for one, would rather we get high-detail ship porn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh yes, this kind of size battles would be difficult to make them work properly, however I would still be interested in some form of smaller supportive missions for the ground forces. but if it would came you would need to pull off something like, lets say overlord, I would actually go with auto resolve mechanism. I know how stupid AI can sometimes get with huge armies, I saw it way too many times in Campings in Wargame.

Sometimes I just forget how warfare during ww1 and prior looked like

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts was featured in a Wargamer editorial. Grogs are excited for this title, and I hope the "no fun brigade" is listened to as development continues. Wargamers may not be a huge market, but they are a loyal one. 

Yeah, This game is a long way from becoming main stream wargame. I'd guess it needs to at a very least win over RtW. Which I'd say at the moment it wont. But it's still early days so who knows.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now there are a few things I have to say about this update.

One - part overlapping still isn't fixed. I can't put things where they are obviously designed to go.

Two: I would still like to be able to save custom battle ship designs.

three - oh my god please fix the standard barbette not bein able to fit 16" guns, this shouldn't be an issue and this looks absolutely hideous

Four: Bring back funnel and superstructure rotation! That was so much fun and gave us actual freedom, by removing that it's removing some of the fun aspect of being able to make stupid ships that are just fun to play.

Finally, when will you add quad barrel turrets? Ships like HMS King George VII, FFNF République both use this, and hell, even some small caliber guns like the Smolensk (Which, admittedly, I'm pretty sure was a paper ship) had four barreled turrets.

I would love to see these issues fixed and the other features added/returned because it made the game so much more fun.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Secondaries, when set to 'aggressive' mode, can fire at targets outside their range. For example, 5 inch secondaries can fire at targets 25+ km away.

2. Ships can detonate from penetrations or over-penetrations to locations outside the citadel. For example, a well protected battleship at 90%+ structural integrity may sink after an over-penetration to bow belt extended area. Is this intended?

3. Some suggestions to make the battle less arcadey:

     - Armour weight should not vary so much depending on technology. The deduction in armour weight with the latest technology makes it rather trivial to completely cover a battleship in armour.  Example: Reproduction of Bismark's armour scheme results in total weight of 12432 tons out of 62600 tons, or about 20% of design weight (Krupp4, Turtleback Armour Scheme, Belt: 12.6", Belt Extended: 2.4", Deck: 6" (weather deck + main armour deck), Deck Extended: 2", Turret: 14.2", Turret Top: 7.1", Conning Tower: 13.8", Secondaries: 3.9") whereas the armour on real Bismarck weighed 19082 tons, or about 40% of the warship's displacement when fully armed.

     - Armour weight and cost should vary according to the change in size of the citadel.  For example, having main armament near the ends of the ship should result in increase in armour weight and cost since the size of the citadel needs to increase correspondingly.

    - Penetration curves should be close to historical data.  Currently, deck penetration values are extremely high (by a factor of 3 compared to historical data), whereas vertical armour penetration values are rather low and drop off extremely fast. 

   - Penalty to accuracy due to target's high speed should not exist for this time period.  The concept of "speed tanking" artillery never existed in real life.  The purpose of having high speed is to provide strategic / tactical advantages; high speed has nothing to do with dodging shells.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Destroyers seem to be incredibly easy to hit compared to all other ships.

Tested in custom battle; at the same range of 15km my CL landed 1 hit on the enemy CL, but landed 6 hits on the enemy DD's. My CA landed 1 hit on the CL and 8 hits on the DD's and my BC landed 0 hits on the CL and 4 hits on the DD's (1 main, 3 secondary.) This does not make sense as the DD's were both smaller and faster and in smoke while the CL was not, so the odds should be stacked against me, but instead I hit them much more often. My own DD's in that same custom battle were also hit 12 times while my CL, CA and BC were only hit 3 times between all of them, by holding the range at 14km. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/19/2020 at 8:49 PM, Donluca95 said:

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 importat feature. I keep not understanding the devs about this, why implementing a save design system in damn "Naval Accademy" and not in "Custom Battle" ?

I can understand where you're coming from.  Personally, I spend hours designing and never go into combat because that's the part of the game I love the most.  When I'm making a video I have to remind myself to go quickly in the design process otherwise the video could easily be 2+ hours with only 15 minutes of battle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

Destroyers seem to be incredibly easy to hit compared to all other ships.

Tested in custom battle; at the same range of 15km my CL landed 1 hit on the enemy CL, but landed 6 hits on the enemy DD's. My CA landed 1 hit on the CL and 8 hits on the DD's and my BC landed 0 hits on the CL and 4 hits on the DD's (1 main, 3 secondary.) This does not make sense as the DD's were both smaller and faster and in smoke while the CL was not, so the odds should be stacked against me, but instead I hit them much more often. My own DD's in that same custom battle were also hit 12 times while my CL, CA and BC were only hit 3 times between all of them, by holding the range at 14km. 

This, Torp Boats and destroyers still kinda suck. The game is still overwhelmingly in favor of battleships despite cruisers and destroyers historically going toe to toe with them and achieving what seemed to be an impossible battle. Might I reference USS Laffey going head to head with an entire Japanese fleet and causing incredible damage before finally being sunk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some Destroyers achieved "impossible feats". Most of them where sunk without achieving anything other than "being gallant". The exception should never be considered like the norm.

If Yukikaze never took any serious hit during the war, despite being in some pretty Burger-eating heavy environnement, I would rather use the fate of the other Kagero class destroyer to judge the overall usage efficiency of this particular (and sexy) class of destroyers.

Destroyers "can" deal serious damage but they are way easier to sink than something heavier. The fact that they where used extensively as escort, picket, vanguard and other very safe assignement further added to the rather heavy casualties.

For now In UA:D, use destroyers as screen, use torp at range, don't hope too much of your guns (yet) against anything bigger than a light cruiser. I'll wait for the crews and the way of killing them before saying that a ship type "sucks". They have a role to play and sometimes, they can make some pretty neat heroic acts.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Memo_collector said:

1. Secondaries, when set to 'aggressive' mode, can fire at targets outside their range. For example, 5 inch secondaries can fire at targets 25+ km away.

Thank you for the report, we will fix this. It happens when you manually target secondaries and set them on aggressive mode. The fatal error "Too many threads" may also occur then.

16 hours ago, Memo_collector said:

   - Armour weight should not vary so much depending on technology. The deduction in armour weight with the latest technology makes it rather trivial to completely cover a battleship in armour. 

Arguably, armor weights are very close to historical numbers (in sums) but the balance is not final since we have to add more ship components that will also cost weight. As we finalize ship technologies, all these numbers will match history even more.

16 hours ago, Memo_collector said:

  - Penetration curves should be close to historical data.  Currently, deck penetration values are extremely high (by a factor of 3 compared to historical data), whereas vertical armour penetration values are rather low and drop off extremely fast. 

Penetration tables show "wrought iron" values. We can easily offer an alternative numerical system to use more advanced armor as reference (to compare them more easily with the actual historical data).

12 hours ago, Reaper Jack said:

Destroyers seem to be incredibly easy to hit compared to all other ships.

In next patch, the dynamic targeting will be further improved to make those ships, and generally the maneuverable ships, more comfortable to play.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Penetration tables show "wrought iron" values. We can easily offer an alternative numerical system to use more advanced armor as reference (to compare them more easily with the actual historical data).

 

Wouldn't it make sense to have the tables show penetration of the armor you have currently mounted on your ship?

So if I have Krupp I installed, it shows pen values vs. Krupp I while if I have Krupp IV mounted, it shows penetration vs. that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


 

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Penetration tables show "wrought iron" values. We can easily offer an alternative numerical system to use more advanced armor as reference (to compare them more easily with the actual historical data).

cvvU2TB.jpg

I still feel that deck pen is way too high even considering material differences. It's currently impossible to create an immunity zone without stacking unrealistic thicknesses of deck armor.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...