Alpha-9 News Update

[CapnAvont1015]

5 minutes ago, Skyguy1944 said:

What'd be really cool in the future would be being able to select a portion of the ship and manually change the armor thickness, depth of the citadel and "bullet sensitive" components, shape of the citadel protection, etc.

I admit a lot of this comes from playing wows, but these (armor designs of ships) were design choices that engineers made way back when, so with the freedom that this game allows, we should see what boundaries of creativity can be hit!

OI. Its not like WOWS owns the way we set up ship components so we can set up our ships however we want. The only thing WOWS might own are the paper ships but I might be wrong.

[Skyguy1944]

4 minutes ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

OI. Its not like WOWS owns the way we set up ship components so we can set up our ships however we want. The only thing WOWS might own are the paper ships but I might be wrong.

Nah nah I mean where I'm imagining these things. I'm thinking of their "armor viewer" in the port as an example of changing the various thicknesses of armor. It's a very approachable presentation of how armor is laid out.

[CapnAvont1015]

Ok I really hope when camos are added to the game I hope we can add logos and such on the decks like with Bismarck. Now I know in real life the reason they did this so aircraft won't get confused and attack they're own ships. The Italians are the best example of this they're red and white stripe decks. 

[Skyguy1944]

Can I put in a vote to have 20in. guns on dreadnaughts? And the ability to put big ol' guns in every open space on deck?

Edit: And gold accents, please. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by Skyguy1944

[CapnAvont1015]

2 minutes ago, Skyguy1944 said:

Can I put in a vote to have 20in. guns on dreadnaughts? And the ability to put big ol' guns in every open space on deck?

I vote for this but only in custom battles.

[Skyguy1944]

Just now, CapnAvont1015 said:

I vote for this but only in custom battles.

Or in an "ahistorical" campaign, perhaps? :3

[IronKaputt]

Just now, Skyguy1944 said:

Can I put in a vote to have 20in. guns on dreadnaughts?

Unability to build something like HMS Incomparable would be rather strange, IMO.
At least that's there I planning to start my "roaring 20s" lineage.

[CapnAvont1015]

Just now, Skyguy1944 said:

Or in an "ahistorical" campaign, perhaps? :3

A campaign without limits.....LETS DO IT

[Mindstrip]

22 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

"any of you notice a ship doing 0.1kn can put the exact same penalty on your gunnery as a ship doing 30kn, for example?"

 

Since this issue seems to be mostly ignored or misunderstood I made a GIF trying to demonstrate this:


Target Maneuver penalty % slaved to Rudder's position.

[Link - imgur.com] (Original clip created: 26 August 2020. Version # / № might not be correct.)
If the resolution is insufficient, give me a holler.

This was first reported back in February 2020, ~ 8½ months ago:
 

Another example:

 

22 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

I confess I find it peculiar that others don't seem to be troubled by the lack of attention to those vital core mechanics for more or less a year, which is roughly how long I've been here.

Wholeheartedly agree. I've been meaning to contribute such as with the GIF but previous attempts kept giving me this bitter taste in my mouth, thinking:
"Meh, what's the point? It'll just get flooded by countless hull requests/showcases, shiny explosions, turrets popping like popcorn and balancing more akin to turning the dial on a broken radio; trying to tune into an FM-frequency whilst the radio is secretly set to AM but is actually controlling your microwave." 
Harsh and quite hyperbolic i know but...

Hopefully with the reorganization things might change a little. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

 

On 10/17/2020 at 1:14 AM, FinnishJager said:

This game's not going to get a campaign is it...

❤️ 👋

This is most likely "water under the bridge" and irrelevant by now but:
Based on the following post i had the impression that the first playable version of the campaign would only be released around January/February 2021.
Though the post may seem rather ambivalent/confusing and perhaps give the impressions that:
 

1. "First iteration will be out in 5-6 months counting from this day onward"(June 19)
   Or
2. "First iteration will be out 5-6 months counted after the steam early access release, so 8 months from now?"

Had to ask for some clarification(page 1, last post) since the majority seemed to have interpreted it as #1 being the case. Plus me feeling old and being in a constant state of self-doubt and confusion.
 

• "Beta version of the campaign, as mentioned above, will be available 5-6 months (or more) after Steam Early Access launch, as a beta branch. "

^ Yes, discontinued and closed thread but i figured i'd bring it up since there are mentions of Nov/Dec here and there.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Mindstrip
Grammar and tyops. Edit 2: Added title to the GIF.

[Bilderberger]

I wonder, what will this game set its focus on? Will it try to stay close to reality or will it go a more *creative* rout? I fear it can only be one thing or all the other.

[Squatter]

On 10/19/2020 at 3:06 AM, Steeltrap said:

Personally I find this introduction of additional bling underwhelming.

AI, damage model, armour model and damage control are where things have stalled....

.... Sticking quad gun turrets and 20 inch mounts are not strictly necessary, or at least nowhere as necessary as the much less glamorous stuff I bang on and on about.

This

[Shiki]

On 10/18/2020 at 9:06 PM, Steeltrap said:

- Snip -

I have become extraordinarily jaded towards any and all promises of 'realism' and 'historical accuracy' from any game that promises it. We might ask for things, but ultimately, the only way to get something is to do it yourself - hence, I think, the continued insistence on mod support. If they won't give us realistic parameters, we'll just have to make them ourselves.

[Cptbarney]

13 minutes ago, Shiki said:

I have become extraordinarily jaded towards any and all promises of 'realism' and 'historical accuracy' from any game that promises it. We might ask for things, but ultimately, the only way to get something is to do it yourself - hence, I think, the continued insistence on mod support. If they won't give us realistic parameters, we'll just have to make them ourselves.

Ye, mods are the best hope i guess for any other things the devs didn't cover (too be honest hard to cover literally everything but still).

We will need editable obj and fbx files plus cgl and xml as well and whatever file formats so peeps can changes stats, figures, even do overhauls and the ability to add models and effects in as well.

So people can tailor make the game a bit more to their pleasing like any of the fallout games for example. 

[Bluishdoor76]

I think some people do have some very unrealistic expectations for this game, it's still a very small team after all with limited assets. I'm also of the belief that 100% realism is just not that fun, I remember from my world of tanks days how so many people wished the game would be more realistic. They eventually got their wish when War Thunder ground forces released a lot of them went, wow this sucks, I hate this, I just die in 1 hit. Imho a balance between arcadiness, which this game already has, and realism is the best way to go. With mod support for those who are willing to put the work towards getting that 100% realism they want. And it's why I believe the biggest issue with the game is the ship designer, it is it's main feature, and currently the biggest thing turning people away. You can't do much with it at the moment and just ends up being a repetitive experience no matter what nation you select, you'll end up with the same design over and over again, and that's not fun at all.  

Edited October 20, 2020 by Bluishdoor76

[ReefKip]

The devs said they want to make a realistic game . However they do not want to go for for a simulator according to one of stealth's video's. I believe it was the QA one.if you are lookiling at this game through the lens of a smulator game then you are setting yourself up for dissapointment.

If people want to drop the game because of one mechanic not being realistic. Sure go ahead. Its pretty shallow to do so though if you look what the game is offering in other places. Just remember that the devs never promised a 100 procent realistic game. Which by definition would be a simulator.

I think they are going for kind of a red orchestra aproach to the game. Red orchestra for people that do not know is a semi-simulator shooter that is realistic enough to feel authentic but taking some freedoms to keep the gameplay fun. So basicly realism taken far enough that it does not sacrifice the actual fun factor of the game. This is what UA:D seems to be aiming for. Its not trying to be The ARMA of naval combat..

Or just wait for mods so you can turn it in a simulator game.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[CapnAvont1015]

3 hours ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

I think some people do have some very unrealistic expectations for this game, it's still a very small team after all with limited assets. I'm also of the belief that 100% realism is just not that fun, I remember from my world of tanks days how so many people wished the game would be more realistic. They eventually got their wish when War Thunder ground forces released a lot of them went, wow this sucks, I hate this, I just die in 1 hit. Imho a balance between arcadiness, which this game already has, and realism is the best way to go. With mod support for those who are willing to put the work towards getting that 100% realism they want. And it's why I believe the biggest issue with the game is the ship designer, it is it's main feature, and currently the biggest thing turning people away. You can't do much with it at the moment and just ends up being a repetitive experience no matter what nation you select, you'll end up with the same design over and over again, and that's not fun at all.  

This right here is what everyone needs to understand. This is a very small team working on something big and fact is what they have so far is amazing considering how small the team is. As for realism, it's good to a degree. Like Bluishdoor76 said War Thunder did it and look what happened. People bloody hated it. So light ships such as DDs and CLs so be tough enough that they can take a few hits such as over-pens but not like how in WOWs they take them and they're completely fine. As for the limitations on ship designs, they have to get rid of that soon. It is literally the biggest thing going for the game its so limited people really don't like that. People want to make IJN Yamato but can't do that without making look super weird. A lot of people want to make modern IJN Fuso but can't do that they can't place a barbette in a certain place. As soon as that fixed points on the ships are gone people are to be making amazing vessels left and right.

[Skeksis]

DELETED

Edited October 20, 2020 by Skeksis

[Fishyfish]

I just want functional and easy to place echelon turrets and the ability to build and then explode the USS Maine. Is that too much to ask? 

 

[Steeltrap]

I have FREQUENTLY stated that I do NOT expect "100% realism", as though that would be possible regardless.

What I DO want is patently ABSURD situations to be addressed. By which I mean aspects that are SO far removed from ANYTHING within even a very generous and broad definition of "reasonable" or "accurate" or, dare I say it, "at least makes some sort of sense". THOSE I want addressed.

CLs and CAs that are nigh indestructible because of MAX bulkheads while the pre-dread BB next to them is sunk by 2 hits that cause flooding in the bow and stern and apparently the BB had no transverse bulkhead? Yeah, that's patent garbage. Pre-dreads even of the late 1800's had VERY substantial transverse bulkheads bow and stern (go look at a few in Wiki, for example). So how has this remained in the game since I started playing it, even being asked "What's wrong with bulkheads?" by Nick himself not long ago. Really? Are you serious? It's only been mentioned a few hundred times over the past 12 moths or so, LOL.

How about your 12" AP rounds that can ricochet from the bow of a CL at 2km yet the same 12" gun firing HE never, ever ricochet? How does that work? If the armour can deflect the shell with greater pen, how can it NEVER deflect that with less pen fired from the same gun? Doesn't bother anyone?

@Mindstrip has done a fantastic job of capturing the problem with ship manoeuvre, too, something that's been raised many, many times.

I'm genuinely curious to know how often everyone is playing. What battles are you playing? Do NONE of you find it diminishes your interest in the game when you can predict with near certainty the result of battles as soon as you check the armour and bulkheads of the enemy capital ships? Or the other often commented upon core issues that remain unaddressed and, often, unacknowledged? Or the AI that has individual ships/divs sailing towards you, sometimes to daftly short ranges, even when they don't have torpedoes, only to turn around and sail away, the only discernable purpose of which appears to be some arcane naval hokey-pokey of which I have until now remained ignorant?

While I agree modding might be nice, I suspect the sorts of things we're discussing here WON'T be subject to modding as they're absolutely core elements.

Either way, I've no intention in putting my faith in mods. Relying on others to fix substantial issues that ought not be present is, to my mind, unacceptable.

I could go on (and on, lol), but won't because I've said it all before. I do have a LOAD of pictures to highlight all sorts of elements, but I don't think I can be bothered. I'm sure some of you will be happy to hear it, LOL.

Just to be clear, in case people haven't noticed it in other posts I've made, I do NOT expect these things to be resolved quickly or immediately. That's NEVER been my point. What I WOULD like is to have some clear statement as to whether those core elements are more or less as the devs are expecting them to remain with the exception of some minor adjustments here or there, because that's what's important to me.

It's not how quickly things are addressed, it's whether the devs consider (and ideally acknowledge) that these ARE problems TO BE addressed.

Hope everyone's safe and well.

Cheers

Edited October 21, 2020 by Steeltrap

[Bilderberger]

58 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

I have FREQUENTLY stated that I do NOT expect "100% realism", as though that would be possible regardless.

What I DO want is patently ABSURD situations to be addressed. By which I mean aspects that are SO far removed from ANYTHING within even a very generous and broad definition of "reasonable" or "accurate" or, dare I say it, "at least makes some sort of sense". THOSE I want addressed.

CLs and CAs that are nigh indestructible because of MAX bulkheads while the pre-dread BB next to them is sunk by 2 hits that cause flooding in the bow and stern and apparently the BB had no transverse bulkhead? Yeah, that's patent garbage. Pre-dreads even of the late 1800's had VERY substantial transverse bulkheads bow and stern (go look at a few in Wiki, for example). So how has this remained in the game since I started playing it, even being asked "What's wrong with bulkheads?" by Nick himself not long ago. Really? Are you serious? It's only been mentioned a few hundred times over the past 12 moths or so, LOL.

How about your 12" AP rounds that can ricochet from the bow of a CL at 2km yet the same 12" gun firing HE never, ever ricochet? How does that work? If the armour can deflect the shell with greater pen, how can it NEVER deflect that with less pen fired from the same gun? Doesn't bother anyone?

@Mindstrip has done a fantastic job of capturing the problem with ship manoeuvre, too, something that's been raised many, many times.

I'm genuinely curious to know how often everyone is playing. What battles are you playing? Do NONE of you find it diminishes your interest in the game when you can predict with near certainty the result of battles as soon as you check the armour and bulkheads of the enemy capital ships? Or the other often commented upon core issues that remain unaddressed and, often, unacknowledged? Or the AI that has individual ships/divs sailing towards you, sometimes to daftly short ranges, even when they don't have torpedoes, only to turn around and sail away, the only discernable purpose of which appears to be some arcane naval hokey-pokey of which I have until now remained ignorant?

While I agree modding might be nice, I suspect the sorts of things we're discussing here WON'T be subject to modding as they're absolutely core elements.

Either way, I've no intention in putting my faith in mods. Relying on others to fix substantial issues that ought not be present is, to my mind, unacceptable.

I could go on (and on, lol), but won't because I've said it all before. I do have a LOAD of pictures to highlight all sorts of elements, but I don't think I can be bothered. I'm sure some of you will be happy to hear it, LOL.

Just to be clear, in case people haven't noticed it in other posts I've made, I do NOT expect these things to be resolved quickly or immediately. That's NEVER been my point. What I WOULD like is to have some clear statement as to whether those core elements are more or less as the devs are expecting them to remain with the exception of some minor adjustments here or there, because that's what's important to me.

It's not how quickly things are addressed, it's whether the devs consider (and ideally acknowledge) that these ARE problems TO BE addressed.

Hope everyone's safe and well.

Cheers

Especially the last part, at least for me, is quite important. As of right now, I am still unsure about the current status of the game. One man's expectation on this forum appears to be another user's absolute nightmare. Yet both seem realistic in their respective vision, because the devs never explained as to which audience they wish to cater. Having at last *some* form of explanation as to where our journey is heading might alleviate the pain of not knowing what is yet to come. As it stands right now, many expectations are detrimental to each other and clearing up some of the mist surrounding these can appear to bear fruit in the long term as it, at least in my mind that is, avoids not only building up false expectations but also the anger if the former were "made" - Because let's be real here, expectations do not always revolve around actually made promises - and not fulfilled.

[Cptbarney]

1 hour ago, Bilderberger said:

Especially the last part, at least for me, is quite important. As of right now, I am still unsure about the current status of the game. One man's expectation on this forum appears to be another user's absolute nightmare. Yet both seem realistic in their respective vision, because the devs never explained as to which audience they wish to cater. Having at last *some* form of explanation as to where our journey is heading might alleviate the pain of not knowing what is yet to come. As it stands right now, many expectations are detrimental to each other and clearing up some of the mist surrounding these can appear to bear fruit in the long term as it, at least in my mind that is, avoids not only building up false expectations but also the anger if the former were "made" - Because let's be real here, expectations do not always revolve around actually made promises - and not fulfilled.

Too be fair if the game is still fun, ill still play it regardless. I think the devs are keeping their options open as i've learnt in game design, the final product seldom ever resembles the previous iterations or various plans and ideas unless you have such a solid and determined mindset and/or love the idea itself.

All we can do is wait, see what they give us and then tell them what they are doing well, what they are doing wrong and then also what they could do better.

And if they succeed with this game we can then tell everyone how good they are, at either game like these or in-general etc.

[TotalRampage]

22 hours ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

I think some people do have some very unrealistic expectations for this game, it's still a very small team after all with limited assets. I'm also of the belief that 100% realism is just not that fun, I remember from my world of tanks days how so many people wished the game would be more realistic. They eventually got their wish when War Thunder ground forces released a lot of them went, wow this sucks, I hate this, I just die in 1 hit. Imho a balance between arcadiness, which this game already has, and realism is the best way to go. With mod support for those who are willing to put the work towards getting that 100% realism they want. And it's why I believe the biggest issue with the game is the ship designer, it is it's main feature, and currently the biggest thing turning people away. You can't do much with it at the moment and just ends up being a repetitive experience no matter what nation you select, you'll end up with the same design over and over again, and that's not fun at all.  

Agreed. I personally love WT realistic because it's actually harder to die though :P. I will say that this game operates in a sort of quazi history realm where you can literally change the course of history. And this game can't really be a sim because we make our own ships essentially. People are going to find meta's and more effective countermeasures in the game against various types of units because we have the opportunity to essentially create hundreds of variants and "test" them in combat. Which might not be historically accurate because maybe it's more cost effective for you to build torpedo boats and charge them into an enemy BB. You might lose 80% of them but when they cost so little in the campaign it could make it a viable tactic. People just don't know what what will happen because well every campaign will be different. Also this game is about battleship battles which historically did not happen often. So knowing exactly might theoretically might happen in a battle between battleships is inconsequential because well there is so many things that could have happened in really life and we will never be able to accurately replicate it in this game.

Because this game is not going to be a sim.

[akd]

If it's not a simulation of the real factors that influenced ship design, then what is the point?  The real driving interest here is how alternative designs perform in relation to historical designs.  If the game is not grounded in that, I'm not sure what the appeal is in a historical wargaming market.

Also, please don't compare to MP games. That is a completely different dynamic.

[TotalRampage]

It's not a simulation because we can actively form a meta to the game. I.e. Designing ships to meet specific circumstances or exploit feature's for our benefit. Sims use real world designs that the player uses in a scenario. I dont know of any "Sims" that allow you to change aspects of the vehicle you are using to fit a certain criteria, sims usually make it so the player uses the vehicle within set parameters to the fullest not designing its own. Also this game literally can not be a sim and has never been advertised as a sim just realistic combat which many games offer their take on. 

This game can simulate designs and how to overcome them but it will never fully simulate actually naval combat how people want because the player controls the design. We are creating ships inside a game run system that historically never existed and we don't have all the values for so it can't properly simulate things that never actually existed.  

Also my comment on WT was that I liked it not comparing this to that but if I was if someone wants a "Sim" your better playing war thunder naval than this game. 

Edited October 21, 2020 by TotalRampage

[Skeksis]

On 10/22/2020 at 3:42 AM, akd said:

designs perform in relation to historical designs

Maybe for you but IMO I think the main “appeal” here is the 3D assembly. Every game has some form of upgrades in which players adds to their game object. UAD does it in 3D and that’s unique, players get to be modelers at their level. And also that’s why I think Custom Battles will be the best asset (once develop alittle more) because it will utilize Designer Tool to its fullest potential.

Along these lines a 'simulator designer tool' simply won’t reach its aptitude, as soon as you designate the game as a simulator is when limitations are applied (and everyone love those!!!), since with a simulator you can’t really have non-historical ships, or even wild variations of thee.

The game just has to balance performance carefully so it is always 'plausible'. 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Skeksis