Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Core Patch 0.5 Feedback Hotfix v90<<<


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 717
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Greetings Admirals, The next major patch for Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts has just become available! This large update is the precursor of the first campaign version of the game. We decided to rel

Hello all, We understand your anticipation for the campaign and it is welcome. The last patch which you all play has revealed very few remaining issues that we already sort out to fix in the

Hello all, Tomorrow a new hotfix patch will become available. It will include the following: *Hotfix v90* (30/9/2021) - Refactoring of the Auto-Design code, addressing various issues that coul

Posted Images

2 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

We are all over it now, campaign is cringe now, now we want something else. 

What? Literally everybody here wants the campaign. Think you're in the minority mate, if you don't like the game or the way the developments going, I wouldn't bother anymore. 

Infact, your comment history just proves my point.

Edited by Commander Reed
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/12/2021 at 2:10 PM, JHorsti said:

Can we get some proper german WWI battleship/battlecruiser hulls and turret models instead of the 500th russian or chinese superbattleship? This game is called 'Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts' and for almost 2 years now, you cannot recreate one single german High Seas Fleet capital ship.

 You are right, in this current form this game as focus only in this ending. All the begining period, 1870  and more is nearly non-existant... Try to build a Pre-Dreadnought or a cruiser from every nations (1890-1900) it is exactly the same hulls, super-structures and placement. For a ship-builder game as promoted, this is repetitive and without any freedom.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Man we're hard to please huh?

When they work on campaign we cry about hulls, and when they release less features to give us new hulls we cry "glorified hull update!"

Sigh...

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Draco said:

Man we're hard to please huh?

When they work on campaign we cry about hulls, and when they release less features to give us new hulls we cry "glorified hull update!"

Sigh...

I think most people want this game to succeed badly as it would mean they get to play with their dreams and also establish this game as market leader of its intended niche.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Draco said:

Чувак, нам трудно угодить, да?

Когда они работают над кампанией, мы плачем о корпусах, а когда они выпускают меньше функций, чтобы дать нам новые корпуса, мы плачем "прославленное обновление корпуса!"

Вздох...

We just want to see what is promised.

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

I think most people want this game to succeed badly as it would mean they get to play with their dreams and also establish this game as market leader of its intended niche.

Also people want to get away from the b.s that is WOWS at the moment and with all the crazy crap that's happening over there you can see why people want this game to succeed. The problem is WOWS is the really the only well known naval game where you can play most of the Nations from WW1 and WW2.

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

Man we're hard to please huh?

When they work on campaign we cry about hulls, and when they release less features to give us new hulls we cry "glorified hull update!"

Sigh...

Nope. Queries from players like "we need more hulls from WWI and earlier" were on the forum since alpha 12 in May 2021 and earlier. It's just devs love WWII period.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:

Nope. Queries from players like "we need more hulls from WWI and earlier" were on the forum since alpha 12 in May 2021 and earlier. It's just devs love WWII period.

Yeah, its funny how despite having "Dreadnoughts" in the name of the game the Devs are strangely reluctant to touch that time period, or anything sooner.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TAKTCOM said:

Nope. Queries from players like "we need more hulls from WWI and earlier" were on the forum since alpha 12 in May 2021 and earlier. It's just devs love WWII period.

How about 19 MONTHS AGO (almost to the day) in Upcoming Alpha 5?

I doubt that's the earliest, either. I found it in about 5 minutes.

😆

Edited by Steeltrap
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

I think most people want this game to succeed badly as it would mean they get to play with their dreams and also establish this game as market leader of its intended niche.

I hope they badly want it to succeed rather than it succeeding badly.

I'm not sure what succeeding badly is, but it sounds like it mightn't be a good idea.

🤣🙃

p.s. yes, I'm being silly. Nothing useful to post but thought I'd visit. Hope you're well, Barney.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Yeah, its funny how despite having "Dreadnoughts" in the name of the game the Devs are strangely reluctant to touch that time period, or anything sooner.

How about Ultimate Admiral: Super Battleships?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Iam one of the very early members like late 2019 with the second patch or so and I have to say I despreatly hope that this will be a sucess I thought it is like Rule the Waves 2 but even better with modern 3D graphics.

I think yes there are only a few Dreadnoughts and yeah even less pre-Dreadnoughts but I can understand that they focus on the Ai just imagine you have a fully designed fleet from yourself and the crap thats at the moment produced by the Ai sometimes the Campaign would be lame. Winning every fight cause of the poor Ai design. Thats the major flaw Ai ship building + Ai ship behavior. So I think the descussion about new (pre)-Dreadnoughts Hulls are kinda rushed.

Have a nice at least for me evening.

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

How about 19 MONTHS AGO (almost to the day) in Upcoming Alpha 5?

I doubt that's the earliest, either. I found it in about 5 minutes.

😆

I am too lazy. I looked for a minute or two. Bought this game in 2019, this is the feeling we have been asking for these early hulls all this time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Steeltrap said:

I hope they badly want it to succeed rather than it succeeding badly.

I'm not sure what succeeding badly is, but it sounds like it mightn't be a good idea.

🤣🙃

p.s. yes, I'm being silly. Nothing useful to post but thought I'd visit. Hope you're well, Barney.

Nah its fine, i can see great potential with this game. And judging from the scope it will be tricky to get right, but if they do muh goodness.

Also hope yer keeping good as well mister steel.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, SpardaSon21 said:

Yeah, its funny how despite having "Dreadnoughts" in the name of the game the Devs are strangely reluctant to touch that time period, or anything sooner.

The shortcomings are less visible when you can slap on more guns, larger calibre and more armour. 
 

When you look at smaller displacements and earlier periods, the cracks in propulsion, gunnery, protection, fire control and design - in historical accuracy and gameplay are impossible to ignore. 
 

Of course everything seems to be working great when you have a 90k tn warship making 40 kts with a battery of  16 20 inch guns and that’s all you want to putter around in. “What are you talking about? Everything feels great!” say man who only tinkers with impossible warships. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cpt.Hissy said:

So, hm, turns out it is a good move to take long breaks from this thing.
Tried it again after several months of not touching, and now i do feel improvements compared to the last time, heh

Tf2 Heavy GIF - Tf2 Heavy Good Intensificate - Discover &amp; Share GIFs

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Draco said:

Man we're hard to please huh?

When they work on campaign we cry about hulls, and when they release less features to give us new hulls we cry "glorified hull update!"

Sigh...

The point is not about the mssings hulls or only the campaign, but the game in is total. I am here since alpha 5 and because I was hooked by a good promo. They still advertise this game as a Dreadnought builder and fleets manager in a free style campaign (from 1880 to 1940). We are far from that! The builder is repetitive, and without freedom in placement and design. The focus in the last 5 updates was only with super ships, impossible guns and WW2 area, the campaign will cover way more! (I hope).

My point is, in a campaign we tend to play and replay the first part way often than the finish: new games, wanting the perfect beginning, trying tech and nations etc This is the most played and crucial period of the game and the one lacking attention and focus from the devs.

It is not crying about hulls or the campaign, it is for the entire game to improve and succeed!

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, AdmER said:

(from 1880 to 1940)

Actually it's 1890-1930+ but latest hulls introduced at 1936.

7 hours ago, AdmER said:

The builder is repetitive, and without freedom in placement and design.

Subsequent updates this year gave us much more placements freedom. Everybody rejoiced. Many hulls can support multiple turret configurations now, include Nelson class types, so I suggest Shipyard is not "repetitive" anymore. You're the first to complain about placement freedoms since (maybe second).

Please checkout this thread and pay close attention to 'The Modern Battleship' mission, note all the different ship designs deployed. This is not a "repetitive" Shipyard, actually "far" from it! Varity of design is here now, today.

 

7 hours ago, AdmER said:

The focus in the last 5 updates was only with super ships, impossible guns and WW2 area, the campaign will cover way more!

Many games support progression, so for UAD it's one hull 1890 progressing up to many hulls for 1936. This is typical and expected. And I would say the guts of the game is mid-timeframe moving into late era, this is where the bulk of the campaign will be played. 1890 hulls/ships are just the stepping stone into the bulk of the game.

So IMO, earlier hulls (or full complement or as what many have whined about) aren't as nearly as important as mid-game or late game.

7 hours ago, AdmER said:

My point is, in a campaign we tend to play and replay the first part way often than the finish: new games, wanting the perfect beginning

As you say, only the start. But your campaign starts can be at any decade, players can skip the slower pace of earlier decades, so again, earlier era not so important. I think there'll be other things that will be prioritized sooner, e.g. all nations playable, officers, R&D and even Steam release. 

 

PS, actually it seems like alot of your information is out of date.

Edited by Skeksis
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skeksis said:

Many games support progression, so for UAD it's one hull 1890 progressing up to many hulls for 1936. This is typical and expected. And I would say the guts of the game is mid-timeframe moving into late era, this is where the bulk of the campaign will be played. 1890 hulls/ships are just the stepping stone into the bulk of the game.

That’s disingenuous. The variety of forms of warships was - if anything - more varied early on before experience and the maturation of new technologies led to common standards of ship design. Once the scientific principles of naval architecture, testing tanks, and wartime experience of them in action hull forms become more standardized. 

Early on, you have all sorts of experiments like tumblehome designs, all manner of placements of gun battery, even arrangements of machinery and funnels were really variable until around 1900.

So to say there is a progression from few designs to many is mistaken. The opposite is true: experimentation with many forms led to refinement into a successful few.

Just consider Torpedo Rams, Torpedo Launches, Torpedo Boats, Torpedo Gunboats in 1890-1900. No one was sure how to best employ torpedoes. No one knew with any certainty what torpedo craft would look like, what displacement, what armament, or what their role and doctrine would be. 

How fundamentally different - really - were the Destroyers of the major navies in 1920? When people had figured out what a destroyer was and what it was for, there was a natural convergence in the form it would take. 
 

e: Also a great many of the Victorian types were not stepping stones, but dead ends. I don’t just mean that in the sense of turbine propulsion and the revolution in fire control and all big gun armament - the Torpedo Gunboat was an important ship type that had faded out by 1900, and heavily armed destroyers would not emerge again until the 1930s. Similarly, what Great War or Interwar ships were stepping stones from the Torpedo Ram or Protected Cruiser?

“In spite, or because, of Britain’s Olympian industrial lead, the Fleet was subjected to a stream of piecemeal advances in metallurgy, ordnance and engineering, which it neither welcomed nor knew how to synthesize into an operational doctrine – a task made harder by the absence, between 1860 and 1895, of homogeneous squadrons of major warships. The Crimean War produced no fleet challenge, and the naval actions of the American Civil War of 1861–5, the Austro-Italian War of 1866, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877–8 and the Chile-Peruvian War of 1879–81 provided more red herrings for debate than clear pointers to the way ahead for a global seapower. The years of economizing in the late 1870s, the ‘Dark Age’ of the Victorian Navy, were made easier for the Treasury by the lack of clear direction in future technology and ship design.”


The Rules of the Game: Jutland and British Naval Command
 

That they were distinct and important to their time, while not evolving into later designs is why they need time, care and attention paid to them. The variety of ships and their roles at the early periods is just as important as any other, and should be able to stand on its own - because in terms of technological progression, doctrine, and design - a lot of it is self contained.

 

Edited by DougToss
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Indeed one of the MAJOR purposes of the one, the only (lol, sorry), HMS Dreadnought  was explicitly to rule a line under what had come before and say "THIS is now the baseline of a capital ship of the line".

I seem to recall that Jackie Fisher infamously took to the roster of the existing fleet and ruled through a whole load of them and wrote "scrap the lot".

His issue was the hodgepodge of designs and classes with all sorts of speeds and ranges, armaments, armour and so on made operating across a global empire much more difficult than necessary, plus believed modern (for that time) shipbuilding would or had rendered much of the fleet obsolete.

It's easy to point to the early WWI battles of Coronel and then Falkland Islands to see he was arguably correct, and certainly the battlecruisers did EXACTLY what they were designed to do i.e. counter other navies' armoured cruisers. Good as Scharnhorst and Gniesenau were, especially with respect to their crews, they couldn't compete with even the very first class of BCs.

Not that I'm intending to be picky over views of naval history. It's always fascinated me, and I like seeing others' opinions on all sorts of topics.

The biggest issue I have with ALL of this is the fact that we are relying on hulls being added to the game, as opposed to coming up with a system that would produce a variety of hulls based on requirements (which is arguably EXACTLY how things worked in reality).

Doing that causes single point dependency, always something to avoid like the plague.

My own view is it would be better if the devs worked to make whatever system PRODUCES the hulls they add to the game were itself somehow made available to the players via an appropriate interface. Thus the impact of having to design hulls based on desired speed, endurance, firepower and armour would become apparent, as would the general rule that you can often get only 2 of the 3 and trying all 3 becomes prohibitively expensive, huge and generally utterly impractical.

If THAT were the goal, the year wouldn't matter because everyone could be popping out hulls based on tech for whatever era interested them. The devs would simply have to concentrate of populating the tech etc etc that would dictate what sorts of limits would occur and how the brain behind hull form (you could have an interface named after your campaign country's naval design bureau, for example) generated results based on them. They could also get LOADS of feedback from us/AI as to how that hull designer performed given various updates.

Of course I've written about this stuff many times before, to no effect. I'm only mentioning it as it's a fun topic IMO. The devs will do whatever they choose, my experience is that our feedback largely doesn't matter for the IMPORTANT stuff and has demonstrably driven the devs to "tweak" stuff to quieten the noisiest vs sticking to 'realism' (with all appropriate disclaimers) and getting people to understand WHY things are as they are. Those of course then have flow on effects for damage models etc etc.

I would suggest the history of changes to the secondary batteries in their accuracy and effectiveness as a wonderful example of this, where it moved more and more away from realism seemingly because large numbers of people didn't want to accept that such guns weren't effective against much (note the issue of accuracy of the main batteries, plus the often ridiculous durability of anything with 'max bulkheads', didn't exactly help, precisely why the point about GUNNERY DIRECTION ought to be waaaaaay more important than the calibre of the weapon, and one might reasonably ask why bother to put a secondary battery on at all, although 'not very effective' is not the same as 'useless'). As an illustration of why understanding that is kind of important, we may well ask why the AI still festoons its designs with truly hilarious levels of secondary guns, to the point some ships look as though they've some awful skin condition or an infestation of mites, LOL. Indeed we have asked that. Many times.

I must say I'm not too fussed with whatever happens as I've moved on to other interests. I've not downloaded the latest update as it doesn't feature anything that I consider the absolutely bedrock necessities of mechanics and their interactions (gunnery, armour, damage model and damage control, with torpedoes in some respects their own subset within those categories). I've no doubt I could play the same things I always play to test changes (I run 2 scenarios almost exclusively as it's easy to maintain comparison in my mind) and find nothing of significance has altered.

As an example, the last change that resulted in the AI near ALWAYS using max bulkheads yet the absurd zombie properties of doing so remaining unchanged meant in the 'Armed Convoy' mission (one of the two I play) I now ignore the warships entirely and just go for the transports. That highlights the fact the AI still has zero idea how to screen, because the enemy always forms up and sails off in one direction while the transports go in another. The warships do NOT, however, sail to force me to go through them. I just go flank and run past them on an opposite course while they do whatever. Were THAT to change, and it's kind of important, I'll immediately notice it. Same applies for loads of other things, the advantage of playing the same things over and over (even if a bit boring at times).

Well, enough rambling.

@Cptbarney (or anyone else for that matter), by all means ping me if something interesting happens.

Have fun everyone, and stay well.

Cheers

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, TAKTCOM said:

I am too lazy. I looked for a minute or two. Bought this game in 2019, this is the feeling we have been asking for these early hulls all this time.

Oh I didn't intend it as a criticism, and I'm sure you know that. I was simply curious (and then bemused) as to how far back that went (I joined Oct 26th 2019, coming up on 2 years), and I'd not be surprised if it goes earlier still.

Cheers

Edited by Steeltrap
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Skeksis said:

Subsequent updates this year gave us much more placements freedom. Everybody rejoiced. Many hulls can support multiple turret configurations now, include Nelson class types, so I suggest Shipyard is not "repetitive" anymore. You're the first to complain about placement freedoms since (maybe second).

Plenty of hulls still have pointless placement restrictions - notably on barbettes - which cause compromised designs. Restrictions were eased, which was great for the game, but not removed completely. To imply that is either disingenuous or indicates you haven't spent much time on many pre-1930 hulls lately.

  • Like 2
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...