first abandon post?

[Mooncatt]

sorry, but the whole game just gets worse and worse.

everyone has abandoned the NA missions, they are simply ridiculous. since the wipe and since getting my new pc and having to start over.....after numerous updates the NA are just so stupid you have to rely on luck most of the time.

its sad, the game started out with sooo much potential. it was fun and it wasnt impossible.

there are so many issues raised that have been mentioned too many times and nothing has changed in over a year.

why is it that the enemy can land hits on you right off the bat? where your mk5 miss....not by a little....by whole kilometres!! ive measured this, some shells land 6km+ away from the target......unacceptable. its the same for any sized gun. some get close others almost hit other ships 6km behind.

whats with the ammo situation, there are 15 ships and you want me to sink 70% of them.....how do u expect me to do that with an average of 1200 shells even after taking extended ammo option? hell, it can take 400+ shells to sink a BC or BB or 100 shells to sink a DD, probably talking 200 shells to sink a CA. and thats on a good day! it just isnt possible now, it was at one point, but since the updates it just isnt.

the devs either dont give a sh*t or just want your money. either way, im done with this.

[coalminer]

unfortunately i echo the sentiments of this post and many others who have simply moved on. not so peeved about the lack of progress on the development (COVID and all) but the complete ignoring of community comments, feedback and any sort of constructive discussion is outright ignored. the so called "realism" advertised is a load of bull because almost nothing makes sense.

putting that aside because people inevitably would come and yell "but realism isnt fun!" the whole brushing off of feedback and each patch things just keeps getting worse makes this seem like the most logical option right now. A patchwork of random patches and balances addressing things in piecemeal is only going to result in a patchwork game with barely functioning mechanics where the "patched meta" will always be preferred. Without a good foundation whats the difference between playing this and world of thunder magical battleships and the myriad of clones out there because super BBs and magical technology is all this is about.

Gas turbines, STEALTHY BATTLECRUISERS????? and magical AI knowing when you are out of ammo/torpedoes? kthxbye. Are we getting railguns and H44 hulls next? maybe throw in pykrete and unobtanium armour next perhaps.

[Commander Reed]

Yeah, Gas Turbines are pretty laughable XD

[DougToss]

I’m just confused about how we got to this point.

What made Japanese ships stealthy? Who could have machined reliable gas turbines and why in the 40’s? 

[HistoricalAccuracyMan]

Yeah. I'm gonna be honest...the only real reason I still come back and visit UA:D is because I paid for it and I occasionally have a banger of an idea for a custom battle that I actually wind up enjoying.

My biggest complaint about this game (outside of the very limited feedback/info/communication from the devs) is the fact that with nearly every patch that they have released for a while now, the hulls added (if there are any added in the first place) are all mainly battleship or "experimental" hulls regardless of the era in which they're added. Now, I'm not complaining about the older hulls as I actually quite enjoy custom battles from 1890 to the 1920s in this game, but I mean come on devs...there are SO MANY other hulls, superstructures and gun models you could add OUTSIDE of battleships. I could sit here and type out a decent list, but the major group of cruisers that comes to mind is, quite literally: basically all US Navy cruisers. The Brooklyn class formed the basis for the Cleveland and Wichita class, with the Baltimore class being a direct upgrade to the Wichita class (all the previous ship classes have superstructures with a similar look/feel to them, same with their gun turrets). The Northampton, Pensacola and New Orleans class cruisers are also in the same situation: they all basically look the same. You can't tell me that modeling (at the most basic) one hull, one gun and maybe three or four new tower designs, scaling them to size for either a CL or CA, and then adding them to the game is like asking the impossible. I realize that I seem to always jump to the US Navy as an example, but just stop and think about all the other ship designs outside of battleships that every other nation had during the span of their navy during the time periods represented in-game.

I remember the last big updates that I really got excited for were the ones where they released the multitude of nation-specific gun models (so you weren't building a ship from nation X with gun turrets from nations Y and Z) and the quadruple barrel turrets since I could then try to build the North Carolina class with the 12x14 inch main battery she was designed to have. I'm excited for the "campaign" as well, but I'll admit that my expectations aren't all too high.

TL;DR I once had high hopes and high interest for this game, now it's just mediocre hopes and mediocre interest (at best) and the only reasons I haven't moved on is because I still sort of believe in this game's potential and the fact that I payed to have early access. There is so much that the devs could (and probably should) be doing to keep our interest and hopes up. Battleships are cool and all, but have you heard of these things called battlecruisers, heavy/light cruisers and destroyers? They're just like battleships, only smaller, faster and INCREDIBLY DIVERSE/UNIQUE and the best part...every nation has them, not just some of them, and no two are exactly alike!

[DougToss]

The emphasis on very late battleships seems like a fool’s errand if everything else is stacked against the player sticking with the game that long.

[SonicB]

2 hours ago, DougToss said:

What made Japanese ships stealthy? Who could have machined reliable gas turbines and why in the 40’s? 

Also, why are gas turbines a more appropriate technology to add than large-tube and small-tube boilers?

[Tousansons]

9 hours ago, DougToss said:

What made Japanese ships stealthy?

The heavy usage of gimmicks(tm).

It should have been realized sooner with the way hulls and components are displayed and their stats allocation (it was probably already, just not more wildly criticized. I confess I did not pay attention). It's a logical (if unrealistic) way to differentiate nations from one another more than just the look. If that's the case, we are indeed one step closer to the WoW's strategy game some of you feared we where getting. We're just missing some Island to hide behind.

Bleh.

[Drang]

On 11/15/2021 at 10:35 PM, DougToss said:

I’m just confused about how we got to this point.

What made Japanese ships stealthy? Who could have machined reliable gas turbines and why in the 40’s? 

Presumably the same people who machined out the autoloaders for 18" guns

[Adm. Tom]

Yeah, this looked good in the beginning but it hasn't progressed much so far. OK, I understand, it's an alpha version, so I don't complain much about the money spent. If you buy into something under development that's still vastly experimental you have to take into account that it might not be a smooth ride at all. Expect things being removed, changed and else over the course of time.

But UAD seems to be developed largely on a trial and error basis, however, bug reports - the whole point of an early access alpha - seem to be ignored on an even grander scale and I also fail to recognize the repeatedly announced improvements, particularly when it comes to AI and the formation system. I can also understand that the current focus of the devs lies with the long overdue campaign but that shouldn't lead to total neglect in other areas.

Just one example: since the 0.5 core patch the NA section is an utterly broken deterrent, and eventually a source of massive frustration, for any new player who tries to learn the game. Range for all designs is locked at maximum, which even in very basic missions makes it almost impossible to build a useable, aka 'realistic' ship. Like in 'Speed Basics 2' - truly an introductory mission of kind - where you have to design a CL of 1910's tech level that can outrun and gun down an escaping 28 kts(!) DD. The problem is just that your hull with the basic propulsion machinery and the fuel supplies for the ridiculously long but fixed range almost consumes your entire displacement before even adding any superstructure or guns. But 1910's tech level also doesn't give much access to weight-saving upgrades. So you have to build a truly and completely unrealistic glass cannon of a CL that's just able to keep up with the DD and hope you can sink it with a few lucky shots because you just lug around all that coal for thousands of miles taking away all meaningful equipment options by its sheer weight. Realism, my ***!

After that I quit (re-)playing any of the NA missions because that fixed maximum range now seems to be set for any of them. Just imagine what it would feel like for a new player experiencing this, worst advertising possible. Instead we get all these gimmicky and nonsensical things like 'Gas Turbines' and 'Stealthy Ships' mentioned above that don't improve the gameplay much if at all, while core issues such as the still god awful AI and formation system flaws remain effectively unadressed. And it also doesn't instill a sense of confidence if some newly introduced features, like the saving of custom designs, get immediately broken again by the next update.

This constant cycle of new features being broken over and over again, just to be set straight by one 'hotfix' after another, that in turn often break previously existing and working features, gives the impression of some poorly developed spaghetti coding that the original developers themselves have somewhat lost track of and, worst of all, don't really seem to care about any longer. Thus I won't commit myself to engage in a tryout of the campaign as it may also get easily wiped by just another change to the code without notice.

I still fire up UAD every now and then for some fun type custom battle but I've definitely lost my faith in the devs' commitment to make this more than the experimental mess it actually is at the very moment. And for that seemingly poor level of engagement from the devs' side the early access price tag was also more than a bit steep. But here I can only blame myself for being a bit too naive...