Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Recommended Posts

What players say: "we want old boats, new towers, retrofits, new features, fixes of old features, XYZ, ABC, 123, and some coffee" 

What devs read: "we want more super battleships"

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 272
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Admirals, We would like to share the latest information about the upcoming “Core Patch 1: Mission Mechanics Test” which will include the first playable version of the Campaign, in a very li

I understand games development can be fickle or run into problems unexpectedly. However, even a few screenshots wouldn't hurt now and then. I know i'm repeating myself, but i seriously dislike th

Ok, I have been a silent reader now since 2019, when I first bought the game. Seriously devs, what the hello kitty is going on. Where the hell is the patch/infos about it or the general state of the g

Posted Images

15 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

Please give us some more hulls because at the moment we have strong endgame concept, but not a good early game concept.

And early game is as important as endgame.

This is why I said a LONG time ago by far the better design would be have the system itself generate hulls but the player be allowed to amend beam/length ratio, required speed and so on.

As it is, the game is single stage dependent for every single example of its most basic component, namely the base hull.

If that sounds fine to some people, ask yourself what happens when the dev team move on to something else and no longer produce more hulls.

Also have to wonder why on earth it's set up so producing hulls is seemingly such a substantial piece of work.

I work as a contracted senior business consultant designing/improving processes (and/or heading teams doing so) for major financial institutions for a living, so it's certainly possible my views are entirely incorrect when it comes to designing games' processes.

Even so, 'scalability' and 'resource limited bottlenecks' are questions I'd have thought any design anywhere ought to be addressing. You automate a GOOD process, NOT a bad one. "Design a moth, don't automate a caterpillar" as I sometimes put it. Or, somewhat more graphically, "If your process is delivering raw sewage via gravity feed into the middle of your office, are you really sure you want to put a high capacity pump on it?", where the pump of course stands for 'automation'. That latter one usually succeeds in making the point, LOL.

Cheers

p.s. I also said "more old hulls, more old hull testing because THAT is what players will experience at the start of their campaigns" but got run over by the "we want 12x500-inch guns per turret on gazillion tonne hulls doing 40 knots" LOL (ok, I may be exaggerating slightly) or at least the dev's apparent willingness to appease the crowd over other considerations.

Edited by Steeltrap
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything comes down to the "AI" they hold so dear. I understand that it takes a lot of work to create an "AI" for any games, especially ones that act like they are intelligent. Mediocre AI works fine for most games because the rules to mimic real intelligence are somewhat concise (FPS: AI "only" need to: take cover, sprint, shoot, duck, etc... or Arcade RTS: AI are more complicated but they has a set environment to work with and usually outmatches the player in reaction time). This game however, the AI needs to CREATE. Create "things" that even intelligent people take times to draw up not some random picture that could be learned under "modern arts" in many universities. But the AI needs simple parameters to get things right because they can't make it to work with a robust system. But guess what? You do not need to impose those SAME parameters on the players.

This would be the equivalent of BF1 campaign makes your shot automatically miss the AI until the random chance allow the AI enemy to hit the player and the player is now allowed to hit back especially because EA couldn't get the AI to play like real humans. No, you don't do that. Nobody has done something so backward like that before (or maybe they did and the reason we haven't heard from them is because nobody bought their product or it got canned). If you restrict the player ability to create in a game about creativity, I think you've made some really bad decisions.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2021 at 12:35 AM, IsmaelMolina2021 said:

I'm so excited for the new update. And yeah, we can save our ship designs in the Custom Battles just like we did in the Naval Academy.

My question is that, I was going to talk about the carrier combats that happened in WW2 in the Pacific, such as Battle of Coral Sea and Battle of Midway between USA and Japan. Speaking about Battle of Midway, it might be a crucial mission for both of these countries, but I hope we will play that mission if we either choose USA or Japan in the campaign in the future of UAD.

However, if we win the Battle of Midway as Japan, then we will able not only to occupy Midway Atoll but also taking a full control of the 50% of the Pacific Ocean from the USA and Allies.

This game won't have carriers. At least not in the base version. If it succeeds it might be added as DLC, but no aircraft in the base version, sorry to disappoint.

Maybe check out task force admiral?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

I understand games development can be fickle or run into problems unexpectedly. However, even a few screenshots wouldn't hurt now and then.

I know i'm repeating myself, but i seriously dislike the valve treatment. I mean i get far more invested and interested when i see regular and consistent updates. Than long gaps with nothing.

Yeah but you see posting screenshots would give game devs responsibility.

And a development team being responsible for the game they earn a living making? Oh no no no! Not in current year! 

Up is down, dogs and cats living together, MASS HYSTERIA.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

What devs read: "we want more super battleships"

It doesn't help that the game favors super battleships in several ways besides the number of available hulls:

  • BBs have access to the largest guns and the thickest armor, so they can always be designed with an immune zone advantage. There's torpedoes, but they are much harder to manage than guns.
  • Late-game German, Russian, and Austro-Hungarian BBs can stack Resistance to the moon, achieving outsized durability versus gunfire.
  • Division AI is difficult to deal with, requiring individual micro of ships. The fewer ships, the easier the micro, hence super BBs.
  • BBs are disproportionately featured in Naval Academy missions.
Edited by Evil4Zerggin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Every single gamer goal is to win, it's the very fundamental of all gaming itself, it's an emotion of success.

And one way to do this is to advance/upgrade via 'gear', to win at every step of the way, and in UAD case, it's the next best ship.

Early game is only the start, the base, the end game is the goal, it's where everybody is going, it's where the aspirations are and where the best gear has to be.

That's not hard to understand. And understanding the targeted audience too.

If the game was to be pre-dreadnought or true dreadnought as you guys claim it should be, then the cut off date would have been 1919. But by setting it at 1940, the Dev's have set the game's nature, set the best ship, set the best gear, set the aspirations, set where the success will lie.

Now can you see why "super battleships" have been developed foremost. Just IMO of cause.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 3
  • Sad 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

Every single gamer goal is to win, it's the very fundamental of all gaming itself, it's an emotion of success.

And one way to do this is to advance/upgrade via 'gear', to win at every step of the way, and in UAD case, it's the next best ship.

Early game is only the start, the base, the end game is the goal, it's where everybody is going, it's where the aspirations are and where the best gear has to be.

That's not hard to understand. And understanding the targeted audience too.

If the game was to be pre-dreadnought or true dreadnought as you guys claim it should be, then the cut off date would have been 1919. But by setting it at 1940, the Dev's have set the game's nature, set the best ship, set the best gear, set the aspirations, set where the success will lie.

Now can you see why "super battleships" have been developed foremost. Just IMO of cause.

 

Exactly. To me, the earliest stuff is just a few quick steps to make way to a larger and greater goal, I fully understand that the devs focus the most on the most modern and larger vessels and I agree with it

Edited by SPANISH_AVENGER
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, SPANISH_AVENGER said:

 

Exactly. To me, the earliest stuff is just a few quick steps to make way to a larger and greater goal, I fully understand that the devs focus the most on the most modern and larger vessels and I agree with it

With respect, I don't. It's nice to have some new hulls I suppose, but they should really focus on pre-dreadnoughts now imo, with maybe some late WWI/interwar designs thrown in. What's the point of putting the start date at 1890 if there are literally only 3 or 4 pre-dreadnought hulls in the entire game?

Edited by Speglord
  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite alright that in the end game there are 34 different battleship hulls consisting of super battleships, modern battleships and modernized dreadnoughts available to the player across all nations, yet at the peak of the pre-dreadnought era there are 16 total. That's fine, really.

This doesn't take into consideration the amount of unique hulls per the three main battleship "styles" so to speak. Which I will say are roughly the same with apx 8 unique pre-dreadnoughts, 9 unique dreadnoughts, and 10 unique "post" dreadnoughts. With each group having an additional 2 to 4 variants of existing hulls. 

However some of us aren't powergamers driven by a power fantasy MMO grindfest mindset. Some of us have actual historical interest in the specific eras depicted, and some of us find it very.. interesting how the historical era with widest assortment of different and contrasting armored warship designs is dwarfed by the era of, well, frankly of the least. 

Yes, the point of the game is to win, as is in any game. Speaking for myself, I know I'll have a lot more fun winning in the early era where the idea of the battleship is still coalescing and taking shape, where the learning "how to battleship" is still going on. The challenges posed there by the limitations of technology, along side the rapid development of technology is a lot more interesting than the end game everything is the same but I have a shiny holographic purple equipment on my generic super battleship hull C and my opponent only has purple equipment on their generic super battleship hull A.

This isn't a PvP MMO afterall.

Peak naval combat is between 1905 - Tsushima and 1916 -Jutland, every naval engagement involving battleships afterwards suffers from one of two mindsets. "I'm too afraid to lose this 1 or 2 very big, very expensive, bloated and realistically obsolete warship/s so I'm going to park them in a fjord or back water naval base somewhere" or "I just need these to absolutely level that island/beach head over there" Historically there were 13 battles between battleships between 1904 and 1918 consisting of a total of 143 different battleships and battlecruisers. During WW2, 11 battles with 57 different battleships and battlecruisers participating just shy of half of that is from one battle, Leyte, with 21 different battleships present, albeit not really slugging it out) 

Anyways, I thought the overarching goal of the game, it's point, it's meta existence, was to simulate being the head of Country XYZ's admiralty from 1890 to 1940 (+ how ever long the end game lasts) not just, ya know, 1930 to 1940 (+++) The pre-dreadnought era consists of functionally 20 years, there are 16 battleship hull options during that time. The rest of the game consists of 30 years, with apx battleship 50 hull options during that time. 

I hope and pray that the devs put some effort into accurately modeling the expenses in cash money, time, and material to build, maintain and repair these super battleships thus forcing the players to limit themselves to a handful at most, and making them think really really hard upon what tactical situations they dare risk them in. Or ya know just yolo it and go full Bismarck and see how well that works out.  

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Every single gamer goal is to win, it's the very fundamental of all gaming itself, it's an emotion of success.

And one way to do this is to advance/upgrade via 'gear', to win at every step of the way, and in UAD case, it's the next best ship.

Early game is only the start, the base, the end game is the goal, it's where everybody is going, it's where the aspirations are and where the best gear has to be.

That's not hard to understand. And understanding the targeted audience too.

If the game was to be pre-dreadnought or true dreadnought as you guys claim it should be, then the cut off date would have been 1919. But by setting it at 1940, the Dev's have set the game's nature, set the best ship, set the best gear, set the aspirations, set where the success will lie.

Now can you see why "super battleships" have been developed foremost. Just IMO of cause.

I am sorry, but I disagree. The end game is the goal, yep, but you have to start the game with late ironclads/pre dreadnoughts. And the cost are different in each nation. For example the USA and Great Britain have more money than Austro-Hungary, Italy etc. And this is why it is so important to have variety in the early game becuse if I choose to play with Austro-Hungary, then I won't have a lot of money and I have to choose the hulls wisely. Adding more obsolete hulls into the game will make the decision easier because I can make cheaper ships, but more of them. And I will have the option (because of the hull variety) to build more classes of battleship. Smaller one, or bigger one, second class battleships, and first class battleships. And not only battleships, but you can do this with cruisers and with torpedoboats too. When we get the campaign, personaly I want to build a very effective fleet at the beggining, and at the moment we only have few hulls, so this will be hard. 

Sure, endgame is also important, but when I defeat the enemies in the game, what will I do with those extremely large hulls? Use it against a "final boss"?

In shogun 2: fall of the samurai the early fleet is important too (for me at least) because I can attack ports, raid routs and defend my army on land near the shore. 

And there are many more reasons why lots of us want those older hulls. This game is starting from 1890-1940. If we won't get the older hulls than this is not ultimate admiral dreadnoughts, this is ultimate admiral super battleships, because at the moment this is the meta.

  • Like 9
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

In shogun 2: fall of the samurai the early fleet is important too (for me at least) because I can attack ports, raid routs and defend my army on land near the shore.

Totally unrelated but was anyone else disappointed that the American Monitors turrets weren't functioning turrets in this? Just stationary armored houses with gun ports on either side..  crushed me, truly. Sure HMS Warrior was the superior choice but come on. Turrets are a monitors deal, CA get it together! 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

Totally unrelated but was anyone else disappointed that the American Monitors turrets weren't functioning turrets in this? Just stationary armored houses with gun ports on either side..  crushed me, truly. Sure HMS Warrior was the superior choice but come on. Turrets are a monitors deal, CA get it together! 

Yea, same here. L'Ocean class ironclad had also rotatable guns. But the monitor was a bit ridiculous. I mean designing a game is hard I understand, but historicaly the monitor turrets could rotate, but in the game it is funny how they done that. 4 guns in the "turret" lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hm, isn't a goal of this kind of games in the development itself?

Isn't it the story about how WW2 fleets came to be, not some fantasy anime soap opera about their fights??

At least for me, all the tasty stuff is in that race of arms, in you working with heavily limited resources to pull it ahead of your opponents, inventing new smarter ways, so on so on.  Varied spectre of options along all timeline is the most important still lacking part of this "game", i would say.
There's not much reason to stay in game after you reach the highest tech, and actually I think the campaign should be designed to end before you reach all of them, that way giving some unique flavour to your and opponent fleets till the very end.
 

I dare to ask certain persons to keep their ill MMOmaniac mindset away, those killed the only good-ish shippy MMO, i don't want them to kill this not-even-an-MMO.

Edited by Cpt.Hissy
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

Hm, isn't a goal of this kind of games in the development itself?

Isn't it the story about how WW2 fleets came to be, not some fantasy anime soap opera about their fights??

At least for me, all the tasty stuff is in that race of arms, in you working with heavily limited resources to pull it ahead of your opponents, inventing new smarter ways, so on so on.  Varied spectre of options along all timeline is the most important still lacking part of this "game", i would say.
There's not much reason to stay in game after you reach the highest tech, and actually I think the campaign should be designed to end before you reach all of them, that way giving some unique flavour to your and opponent fleets till the very end.
 

Yep, I agree. This is why I sad earlier that the early game is very important. And the development of the technology and your own financial limitations, that how you can find the ways to produce technological advanced ships but also take the money into consideration. To choose the best hulls for your needs, and than compromise technology (speed, armour, displacement, gun tech, range finding etc), and of course production! At the beginning maybe I won't have the time to produce one big pre-dreadnought, but maybe I will have the time to produce one smaller but technologycally compact design with one or two smaller cruisers so they can support this ship. The possibilities are endless, but the lack off hulls are the big problem here. I want a well balanced fleet with compact ships, but I want more pre-dread, dread hulls (and of course other ship hulls) so I can select the best to compromise things financially. 

Edited by Marshall99
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Marshall99 said:

Yea, same here. L'Ocean class ironclad had also rotatable guns. But the monitor was a bit ridiculous. I mean designing a game is hard I understand, but historicaly the monitor turrets could rotate, but in the game it is funny how they done that. 4 guns in the "turret" lol.

I always ended up going with the French because the L'Ocean is just such a fine looking ship. But anyways.

 

I wonder the plausibility of going Jeune Ecole in the campaign as one of the poorer nations. I can't imagen countries like Spain or lel China being able to built much in the way of heavy warships. I'd also really love the ability to build monitors inorder to build cheaper heavy warships, kinda akin to the Japanese Matsushima protected cruisers with their big ole single 13in gun or the Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr II with its twin 12in in a single turret forward. Not to evvveen mention the myriad of British Ram Battleships. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Fishyfish said:

I always ended up going with the French because the L'Ocean is just such a fine looking ship. But anyways.

 

I wonder the plausibility of going Jeune Ecole in the campaign as one of the poorer nations. I can't imagen countries like Spain or lel China being able to built much in the way of heavy warships. I'd also really love the ability to build monitors inorder to build cheaper heavy warships, kinda akin to the Japanese Matsushima protected cruisers with their big ole single 13in gun or the Russian battleship Imperator Aleksandr II with its twin 12in in a single turret forward. Not to evvveen mention the myriad of British Ram Battleships. 

I love the look of the L'Ocean class. I made a drawing too, that this ship inspired me to do.

http://image.noelshack.com/fichiers/2021/34/4/1629988838-20200820-093246.jpg

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Marshall99 said:

what will I do with those extremely large hulls? Use it against a "final boss"?

Well as super battleship hulls are in-game, then the enemy AI is going to build one... or two, yeah there's going to be a "final boss" or bosses! This game is taking shape. It's going to be quite hard to finish the campaign without building there counters though.

While the end game is the goal, the journey to get there is the content. Not only the super's but it's the whole package that's selling to the warship enthusiast. The team have really thought out exactly where to place this game, along time ago too, and quite frankly, it's 'brilliant'.

5 hours ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

I dare to ask certain persons to keep their ill MMOmaniac mindset away, those killed the only good-ish shippy MMO, i don't want them to kill this not-even-an-MMO.

Too late, super's are already here.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Fishyfish said:

Some of us have actual historical interest in the specific eras depicted, and some of us find it very.. interesting how the historical era with widest assortment of different and contrasting armored warship designs

I think it's in all of us, warship enthusiast that is, otherwise if you didn't have this interest why would you bother to play this game or post at all.

All of us must connect to history in some way or another, i.e. here, there are no exclusions.

Edited by Skeksis
Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the most interesting period of ship history is the move from WW1 styled ships to interwar and then WW2 styled ships. Stuff like how the Kongo was refitted two times in an attempt to keep them in spec.

While making a brand new ship is the most effective way to ensure they're up to spec, in reality there was countless treaties and other political blocks which prevented that from happening. The game seemingly is not considering that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully they go the RtW2 route, which _has_ treaties that can force you to refit ships - though I'd like to have a bit more input in the treaty itself instead of it being completely random.

Because having three 28,000 ton BBs with 14" guns that are four months from completion being scrapped because the treaty limits me to ships of 23,000 tons and 13" guns is a wee bit infuriating 😉

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/25/2021 at 2:58 AM, Draco said:

This game won't have carriers. At least not in the base version. If it succeeds it might be added as DLC, but no aircraft in the base version, sorry to disappoint.

Maybe check out task force admiral?

When I checked Task Force Admiral, it's still working in progress

And I agree, that means aircraft carriers would be added in the game as DLC

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

×
×
  • Create New...