Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

>>>Core Patch 1.0 Feedback<<<


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Commander Reed said:

3 of them. After the reset, I couldn't be bothered to re-do them because they're fairly luck based. And I don't have the time to play missions for hours on end hoping to win because of random chance that I penetrate the ship and it starts flooding enough to sink.

Really, Target Practice, and either Gun Basics 1 and 2, or Speed Basics 1 and 2 are stupid easy and quick.  I did 3 in about 10 minutes.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The new update which includes the early test campaign is finally available! Read a brief guide on how to play and all the details of the patch in our official blog: https://www.dreadnoughts.ult

@Skeksis@DougToss @Steeltrap @Airzerg @HusariuS @Marshall99 @IronKaputt @Shiki @Bluishdoor76 @Aceituna @CapnAvont1015 @Commander Reed @T_the_ferret @Admiral Lütjens @BuckleUpBones @roachbeef @Schirüno

Admirals, an important hotfix has just become available. Hotfix Update v94 (29/11/2021) READ HERE - Added movement of ships between ports. You can now select ships from each port and move th

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

than ks you got invite to the dockyard discord

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much to say about the first pass on the campaign. It's short and an okayish introduction on what we can expect.

UI is decent, if a bit bland.

Overall performance in game seems better.

Got the campaign to hang during a turn loading two times. A quick return to menu (still available) solved the problem.

Also I had one battle where I couldn't give turn order with the mouse to a ship, his range circle looked all messed up too. I could manually use the rudder and the ship fired with no issues.

I fought against a german CA with veteran crew that looked like some boss battle. Crew still feel quite sturdy and they can fix stuff with incredible speed.

Pathfinding is godawful and I don't think it ever really improved. Ships find new way to get stuck in avoidance pattern for no reason.

Mogami, that's always a plus.

I'll try some more later.

Edited by Tousansons
Link to post
Share on other sites

little addition to the previous post on super damaged ships not sinking, I just had a battle where I got the worst rng and did not hit a single shot, and my ship was on 20% float and like 30% structure, 3 engines gone, captain dead, no stearing and all funnels and towers red. also enemy is like 2 km away so im not winning this one, I hit end battle and my ship survives on heavy damage. this cannot stay. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

JmWRxER.jpg

>trade two protected cruisers and half a torpedo boat for a first-class armoured cruiser and a battleship

>only retreat when you run out of torpedoes

>"Outcome: UNDECIDED"

 The battle outcome should be heavily weighted in favour of tonnage destroyed.  It currently seems to be primarily evaluating % of crew lost.

Edited by Masonator
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The campaign is awesome, and the battle generator is awesome.

Unfortunately, it also runs into the same problem as RTW, where you get odd combinations of ships. For example, one of my smaller engagements gave me 3 Bs, 1 CA, and a single DD. While it was a good battle and evenly matched (3 CAs and 2 TBs), it also really breaks the immersion.

I cannot think of any serious fleet action where multiple battleships were out at sea with so little screening elements (and I assure you, it's not because I'm building no destroyers/short range destroyers. DDs are 'long' range, and I have at least 3 for every CA/BB).

What we really need is a fleet management system, where we can organize elements of the fleet and their standing orders in relation to each other (mostly just the battle orders copied over).

For example, we could set a fleet with a set of ships. Then we divide these ships into say four squadrons. Our first squadron has our newest, best battleships and we give it the "Steady" order so all other elements revolve around it. Our second squadron has some CAs, so we give them a "Follow" order so they're close at hand as a powerful tool to deploy when necessary. Our third squadron of CLs gets Scout, and a fourth squadron of DDs gets a Screen order.

Now, when we get fleet battles, the battle generator would know to deploy them together. If it needs a smaller engagement, it can check the ratio of ships and see if it can spare certain other ships like it does now, but it can give priority to Follow and Screen ships as protection. This would make the battle generator give out more realistic scenarios as well.

But wait, wouldn't we just create super-groups so nothing ever gets engaged in a fair fight? Well, no. First, a fleet action/range would be limited by the core ships, and anybody that can't make it doesn't make it (or even the fleet never makes it). You could even introduce a scaling organization penalty, meaning that larger elements take much longer to get out to sea and would miss the smaller, quicker actions (like convoy raids).

Also, this would greatly help set the bones of a system for officers, as well as simplifying movement orders (just order the fleet to move, not having to select every ships individually).

---

Second thing: the ports.

While I love the granular detail of each and every port, I am worried that it'll too fine for the actual campaign, which will have a lot more area to cover. Right now, just for the North Sea, we have so many ports. What happens when we have to control global navies? I'd say you need to at least scale it back to the province level.

Otherwise, we need to make the ports searchable by either tonnage overall, or tonnage left. Then, when you try to move ships, you get only the relevant results.

Also, a tree structure for the ports window could be implemented. First by region, then province, then the specific ports.

Or maybe we can decommission or second line the lesser ports? We can choose specific ports to show up on movement orders as fleet anchorages, and consign the rest to logistics/convey/repairs as needed by AI decision.

---

Third: convoy system.

Love the idea of convoys and how they affect economy. This makes those convoy missions matter a lot more.

However, I'd love to see more control over how we protect convoys, preferably on a region by region basis when we get the rest of the map.

For example, we should be able to choose large convoys where we can concentrate our defenses. However, we'd have to defend a lot of slow transports, and the enemy can deploy more concentrated hunters, with a much bigger prize if they win.

Or we could select very small convoys and have very few defenders, but the enemy never really wins anything even if they sink everything.

Or, we might even to choose to disable the convoy system, risking a few merchant ships, but not having to commit any concentrated defenders.

If you combine this with the fleet management as stated above, we could also create the system the Allies used: where each convoy had protection, but there was also a bigger force lying in wait (which could spawn within a bigger random range if we're using small convoys, but usually closer at hand if we have a few, limited, and big convoys).

I have had a few sprees of two defending DDs go up against a raiding force of a CA and CL. I have the ships that I would dedicate into trade protection (even Bs that I'd be willing to commit), but the battle generator just has know way of knowing that yet.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

@AurumCorvusMy understanding was this battle generator system is only going to be in the game before they can properly finish fleet organization and strategic combat. So you'll get weird funky battle OOBs in the campaign, but it should be improved in future versions. 

Was my biggest pet peeve about RTW too honestly, I'd have the tonnage/capital ship advantage but every battle I would be dreadfully outnumbered. The only thing I ended up actually enjoying in RTW was the peacetime building-and-organizing of the navy. I would auto-resolve battles as much as I could.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Speglord said:

@AurumCorvusMy understanding was this battle generator system is only going to be in the game before they can properly finish fleet organization and strategic combat. So you'll get weird funky battle OOBs in the campaign, but it should be improved in future versions. 

Was my biggest pet peeve about RTW too honestly, I'd have the tonnage/capital ship advantage but every battle I would be dreadfully outnumbered. The only thing I ended up actually enjoying in RTW was the peacetime building-and-organizing of the navy. I would auto-resolve battles as much as I could.

If that's true, that's awesome! I briefly skimmed the 1.0 patch notes and didn't see any mention of it, so I wrote out my thoughts.

As a "barebones" campaign, this is very well done, and I'm super excited for the game. But honest feedback is still honest feedback, so I wrote it out.

Thanks for mentioning it nonetheless!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems on an encounter, a pop-up informs the player of the enemy strength in the area beforehand. It would be much better in my opinion if the enemy strength was concealed instead! It would present the player with a much more realistic challenge, and give spotting and target identification a real purpose.

Please consider changing it, or make it preferential in settings. I think it would go a long long way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...