Upcoming Alpha-10

[HusariuS]

I did not expect new patch so fast to be honest

[Worry_Rock]

Happy to see we'll be getting some new stuff this soon after the release of a major update!

[DerRichtigeArzt]

8 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

This could be done a little later, when we add more design components and crew.

The horizontal speed panel was chosen for taking less space and being easier to use. We will reconsider improving the Battle UI much later, as there are, as we know, other priorities.

We will share more information as soon as we can. Campaign is already in process, regardless of the patches we give out. Our ongoing patches intent to keep everyone satisfied by playing the game, until we make the campaign available.

Of course, there is much more to come. Patches continue to arrive according to received feedback and our available resources. 

This is what im happy about, probably the best change so far, actual communication with the community, keep it up, we'd rather wait longer but get more information about the patch than be left in the dark untill it arrives. 

[TAKTCOM]

On 12/11/2020 at 2:39 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

The horizontal speed panel was chosen for taking less space and being easier to use. 

Well, round version looks much more compact

especially if you use a some interface magic

 There a reason why before the digital era most of the instruments on the control board was round. 

I didn't  think the original interface is bad. Of course, there is always room for improvement, but that's not what I mean. The fact is that this 

On 12/10/2020 at 7:53 PM, Nick Thomadis said:

SHIP REVERSE MOVEMENT
...player can also use the reverse engines at his own will, by pressing the Shift-Key and clicking somewhere behind his ship. 

...inconvenient, non-obvious and unfriendly to the player. And your interface doesn't support reverse movement. And this is where real ships can help you. Well, Astern propulsion was known even in the era of sail, so in the era of steam, when every ship could move reverse, the engine order telegraph was invented. Half of the scale indicated movement forward, the other half - movement reverse. 

In my opinion, this completely solves the problems with both lack of space and ease of use in the game interface. It also supports reverse and looks stylish and atmospheric.

There are a lot of their photos on the I-net, so you can find some really cool ones. Like this one from RMS Queen Mary. 

But whatever. The game has tons of imperfections, placeholders and other problems. Now they will be supplemented by inconvenient reverse control. Well, at least we have reverse  now.

Edited December 16, 2020 by TAKTCOM
WAR FOR IMPROVEMENT

[Cptbarney]

@Nick Thomadis I think TAKTCOM's suggest would be excellent for the game as it allows for more room with the UI itself and is more realistic, plus its actually easier, having to click behind your ship as the only method, can be immersion breaking and also tedious i reckon anyways. Although i wouldn't get rid of it but simply have TAKTCOM's idea as the main way of doing things.

Plus, it saves from this being asked down the line and also means another cool feature to the patch itself.

Oh and if at all possible at somepoint we will need more ship hulls from 1915 and below especially pre-dreads as we have found out the severe lack of hulls limits, creativity. Dunno if you can't sneak one or two in at least if not, this patch maybe 4-6 the next one as well.

If any of this is useful of course, i think the UI adjustment would make it look cleaner as well, plus more unique too.

[Cptbarney]

Also...

From Discord not my suggestion btw.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Modular design needs to return as pre-dread designs are extremely limited. 
For example the Frenche only have access to one tumblehome design. This one which they share with the Russians.

Germans have this (which they share with China).

and this.

and Italy, Austro-Hungary and Spain share this.

All of these variants could be built by France with the modular system.

Using only one hull, also this gives Germany a large advantage as they can have three guns instead of 2 like all others and in the case of their battleship 2, four main guns. Also shouldn't France have this as it's an upgraded version of their battleship 1?

 

I think the modular system is better then just having loads of low-end hulls that will be obselete in 2 years because a newer hull is researched
That will be the effect of sticking with the current flawed system.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again not my suggestion, from the discord.

 

[Cptbarney]

Just some stuff, that i thought would be useful or might help regardless with certain issues.

[CapnAvont1015]

So I have a question.

Does War Gaming own the rights to these types of ribbons? Because at some point in the future I want something similar to this to replace the current hit indicators at the top of the screen.

Maybe something like these.

[HusariuS]

1 hour ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

So I have a question.

Does War Gaming own the rights to these types of ribbons? Because at some point in the future I want something similar to this to replace the current hit indicators at the top of the screen.

Maybe something like these.

IIRC they were made by WG Employe so yes they own rights to these ribbons.

I don't know about those one bellow, are they your own design or someone else?

[CapnAvont1015]

23 minutes ago, HusariuS said:

IIRC they were made by WG Employee so yes they own rights to these ribbons.

I don't know about those one bellow, are they your own design or someone else?

The ones at the bottom are a mod for WOWS but I just used it for an example. Now I don't want them to be just like WGs own. I just wanted something similar to it, but if they own concept to ribbons cause if they do that's fine I can think of something else. It's not that important anyway.

[Fishyfish]

While I'm not hostile towards those ribbons I do wish to know why? What we have is perfectly functional. I'd be okay with them but I'd also be concerned about too much UI clutter.

Edited December 12, 2020 by Fishyfish

[CapnAvont1015]

1 hour ago, Fishyfish said:

While I'm not hostile towards those ribbons I do wish to know why? What we have is perfectly functional. I'd be okay with them but I'd also be concerned about too much UI clutter.

Nonononono. I'm not saying what we have now is bad its fine how it is now. Just wanted it to be more visually appealing and if the screen does get cluttered what the Devs could do is place it in a report like slot and make it collapsible. Again this is not important just something I wanted to say.

[Fishyfish]

1 hour ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

Nonononono. I'm not saying what we have now is bad its fine how it is now. Just wanted it to be more visually appealing and if the screen does get cluttered what the Devs could do is place it in a report like slot and make it collapsible. Again this is not important just something I wanted to say.

I can dig that

[Danvanthevacuumman]

alpha 11 do more formation improvements and sound overhaul also

[Bluishdoor76]

On 12/10/2020 at 11:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

• Various minor hull fixes.

 

I do hope this means the old generic hulls that still have the very restrictive hardpoints for barbettes and towers. Other then that, seems like a nice small update, nothing to major but all welcome of course.
 

 

On 12/10/2020 at 2:07 PM, Cptbarney said:

@HusariuS @Shiki @TotalRampage @Koogus @Gangut @IronKaputt @Airzerg @Tousansons @Skeksis (Soz lads, my brain has been fried, ill need a reminder lol).

I believe someone is missing again...... T-T

[Donluca95]

On 12/11/2020 at 9:58 PM, 1MajorKoenig said:

Do we need that?!

Do we want to make it a WOWS thingy with reverse paddling? What’s next - border hugging...? 🧐

 

Rather than these kind of features I would appreciate a solid and courageous improvement to the ship designer 

Man i was ironic xD ahaha i swear i tought you guys got the joke (was a way of saying here you go guys after 3 months of work we got something new... tah tahhh the reverse mode, i'm sure was worth waiting for xD)

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by Donluca95

[Cptbarney]

9 hours ago, Bluishdoor76 said:

I do hope this means the old generic hulls that still have the very restrictive hardpoints for barbettes and towers. Other then that, seems like a nice small update, nothing to major but all welcome of course.
 

 

I believe someone is missing again...... T-T

Barnehs brain was ded when i was making smoll post.

[HusariuS]

17 hours ago, CapnAvont1015 said:

The ones at the bottom are a mod for WOWS but I just used it for an example. Now I don't want them to be just like WGs own. I just wanted something similar to it, but if they own concept to ribbons cause if they do that's fine I can think of something else. It's not that important anyway.

The concept itself is not owned by WG, only their design so anybody can make ribbons similar to those owned by WG.

Edited December 13, 2020 by HusariuS

[coalminer]

On 12/11/2020 at 12:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Hello Admirals,

• Partial Penetration Damage Increase: Shells that partially penetrate the armor will now make more damage. Small gun damage will be more significant against Battleships as a consequence, but still not comparable to the impact of big guns.
• Weight balances for armor, bulkheads, guns: The new balance of weights for integral parts of the ships allows for more realistic constraints. Auto-Design is also affected positively because it makes wiser choices for building more durable and effective ships.
• Tonnage Minimum Step for Design reduced: Minimum step was 50 tons and now it is 25 tons. This change not only helps the player to utilize tonnage more effectively for designing ships but also helps auto-design to use almost all free tonnage (previously it could leave several tonnes unused making AI designs weaker
• Minor penetration balance for 8-inch and 9-inch guns: Those guns have slightly more penetration at their extreme ranges.
• Initial playable missions increased: Initially the unlocked missions are nine (instead of five), to help players progress. (Note: The ironclad missions should be not so tough, due to the partial penetration damage increase).

===========

 

Instead of the slider could we just get a input field to type in tonnage? its really frustrating to try incremental steps and end up over or under the targeted displacement screwing up all sorts of things. Otherwise adding in simple arrows to click in 25 and 250tonne increments would be helpful (e.g I drag the slider to 25,000t then using the arrows, tweak it to my desired target of 24,450t instead of randomly sliding it all over the place)

On the weapon balancing, I hope this doesnt turn into a balance for the sake of balancing World of XX mechanics. Why should a partial pen by a 5" gun deal extra damage just because its a DD firing at a BB? a partial 5" pen against a BB would be less damaging than a partial pen against a DD/CL/CA simply due to larger internal volumes and placement of critical systems.

And what is the the rationale for increased penetration for 8" and 9"s? is this based on historical penetration values or simply tweaking it for the sake of tweaking it? a high angle shell falling at extreme ranges would have more horizontal pen but this should not be tweaking it for the sake of tweaking it so that CAs are "balanced" against BBs.

On weight balancing it is yet another tweaking of numbers with no rationale or reason given, are we simply discouraging players from certain builds just because? The reason why everyone goes for the largest guns and highest armour with maximum bulkhead is simply because everything else is just a compromise. With no advanced placement of magazines, machinery and internals there is no reason why anyone in the right mind will design a ship with anything less than maximum armour (both extended and citadel) because its not a compromise, its a a completely inferior design.

As suggested multiple times across different threads (and patch updates) things CANNOT be arbitrarily tweaked for the sake of tweaking if the game's emphasis and selling point is on realism.

Edited December 13, 2020 by coalminer

[Koogus]

On 12/12/2020 at 9:11 AM, Cptbarney said:

Again not my suggestion, from the discord.

 

Theres a discord for ulimate admiral dreadnoughts?

[wzjistc]

Well if ur guys give a tps control mode in single ship, i think this game will beyond the wows ,totally.

[Steeltrap]

On 12/11/2020 at 3:53 AM, Nick Thomadis said:

Small gun damage will be more significant against Battleships as a consequence

[EDIT: Note to anyone reading, I wrote this before reading Coalminer's post above. Apologies for repeating much the same issues with slightly different flavour]

Why should such gunfire be significant AT ALL, let alone MORE so?

If you're doing it "for balance", might I suggest you STOP doing that?

War ISN'T balanced. The idea is to crush your enemy utterly without taking a scratch. If you can get them to surrender without firing a shot, better still.

If you are stupid enough to pit ANY sort of surface ship that ISN'T a BB class against another BB, guess what? Unless the circumstances are very unusual, such as the last battle of Scharnhorst in WW2 (Battle of North Cape I think is its usual title), your ships are in for a VERY bad day. There's a reason nations spent fortunes on Dreadnoughts, after all, and it wasn't only because they looked so damn impressive.

Hell, just look at the difference between what the Adm Graf Spee handed out to the 3 RN Cruisers via her 11" main and 5.9" secondary guns compared with what she got in return, and the Deutschland class weren't armoured anything LIKE a BB. Even so, that armour did a pretty good job against a LOT of 6" shells (not sure how many 8", would have to check). Now put those same guns against ANY BB you care to name, all the way back to the WW1 era Queen Elizabeth class and HMS Hood, and see what use they are.

Why should a "small gun" (it would be useful if we knew what calibres you are putting in that category) expect to do ANYTHING to a BB other than incidental superstructure damage? Damage radar and radio masts? Sure, although the game doesn't seem to regard them as anything different from the entire superstructure, so, well, goo luck with that. Damage other upper works structures such as funnels and open gun mounts (although I'd like to know why my 12" guns, or 6" secondary guns, can't EVER kill a 3" shielded gun on a Transport regardless of how much HE I hit it with before I expect to see that 3" gun doing anything significant to my BC)? Sure. 8" guns can certainly KO secondary guns, too, and lower calibres at least damage them.

"Significant", however, as in able to threaten ANY essential element of a capital warship? Riiiiiiiiiiight.

As an aside, how exactly are you defining "significant"? It really would help if we had some SPECIFICS to expect such that we can test them. How do we know what "x" calibre is supposed to achieve against "y" armour on a "z" tonnage BB if we're not told?

Not that I'm particularly fussed. Until the elements that govern what happens in combat get the attention necessary, the rest is of little interest. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly important. Yet I've no interest in playing "naval manoeuvres" without combat, and, well, the combat has hit a wall.

Regardless, I'll give feedback.

OK, now everyone can tell me how I'm being unreasonable, LOL.

Hope everyone is keeping well.

Cheers

Edited December 15, 2020 by Steeltrap
Added comment about Coalminer's post

[Cptbarney]

7 hours ago, Koogus said:

Theres a discord for ulimate admiral dreadnoughts?

Ye, both unofficial and official.

Here are da invites.

https://discord.gg/ZCxhVnmv

Could only get the Official discord link sadly. You will have to ask duke of cambridge for an invite or find his thread that he somewhere in general discussions.

[Zuikaku]

58 minutes ago, Steeltrap said:

[EDIT: Note to anyone reading, I wrote this before reading Coalminer's post above. Apologies for repeating much the same issues with slightly different flavour]

Why should such gunfire be significant AT ALL, let alone MORE so?

If you're doing it "for balance", might I suggest you STOP doing that?

War ISN'T balanced. The idea is to crush your enemy utterly without taking a scratch. If you can get them to surrender without firing a shot, better still.

If you are stupid enough to pit ANY sort of surface ship that ISN'T a BB class against another BB, guess what? Unless the circumstances are very unusual, such as the last battle of Scharnhorst in WW2 (Battle of North Cape I think is its usual title), your ships are in for a VERY bad day. There's a reason nations spent fortunes on Dreadnoughts, after all, and it wasn't only because they looked so damn impressive.

Hell, just look at the difference between what the Adm Graf Spee handed out to the 3 RN Cruisers via her 11" main and 5.9" secondary guns compared with what she got in return, and the Deutschland class weren't armoured anything LIKE a BB. Even so, that armour did a pretty good job against a LOT of 6" shells (not sure how many 8", would have to check). Now put those same guns against ANY BB you care to name, all the way back to the WW1 era Queen Elizabeth class and HMS Hood, and see what use they are.

Why should a "small gun" (it would be useful if we knew what calibres you are putting in that category) expect to do ANYTHING to a BB other than incidental superstructure damage? Damage radar and radio masts? Sure, although the game doesn't seem to regard them as anything different from the entire superstructure, so, well, goo luck with that. Damage other upper works structures such as funnels and open gun mounts (although I'd like to know why my 12" guns, or 6" secondary guns, can't EVER kill a 3" shielded gun on a Transport regardless of how much HE I hit it with before I expect to see that 3" gun doing anything significant to my BC)? Sure. 8" guns can certainly KO secondary guns, too, and lower calibres at least damage them.

"Significant", however, as in able to threaten ANY essential element of a capital warship? Riiiiiiiiiiight.

As an aside, how exactly are you defining "significant"? It really would help if we had some SPECIFICS to expect such that we can test them. How do we know what "x" calibre is supposed to achieve against "y" armour on a "z" tonnage BB if we're not told?

Not that I'm particularly fussed. Until the elements that govern what happens in combat get the attention necessary, the rest is of little interest. Don't get me wrong, it's certainly important. Yet I've no interest in playing "naval manoeuvres" without combat, and, well, the combat has hit a wall.

Regardless, I'll give feedback.

OK, now everyone can tell me how I'm being unreasonable, LOL.

Hope everyone is keeping well.

Cheers

 

Battleship Hiei disagrees with this.

[madham82]

6 hours ago, Zuikaku said:

 

Battleship Hiei disagrees with this.

Probably b/c they were more like 1st gen Battlecruisers with heavy cruiser armor instead of anything remotely battleship grade.