Player Suggestions - January/February

[The PC Collector]

14 hours ago, Captain Meow said:

If only it was possible to install 3-4 close-placed funnels on that hull...

If only there were more early CA-BB hulls which allowed the use of side guns, even if it were lower calliber ones... There are so little options to use them, that they could simple remove them... By the time you finally get hulls that can house them, you  usually can already use superfiring turrets, making them useless, or an stopgap at best.

[Speglord]

14 hours ago, The PC Collector said:

If only there were more early CA-BB hulls which allowed the use of side guns, even if it were lower calliber ones... There are so little options to use them, that they could simple remove them... By the time you finally get hulls that can house them, you  usually can already use superfiring turrets, making them useless, or an stopgap at best.

I trust that the dev team is working hard at introducing plenty of new early-game hulls. Nick has actually been pretty adamant about that point for a few months now. We already got some nice larger hulls for France.

[Diesel]

I want the option to add/remove the superimposed barbettes that are already integrated into the superstructure. They are helpful, but they also severely limit your design options in some cases.

[The PC Collector]

1 minute ago, Diesel said:

I want the option to add/remove the superimposed barbettes that are already integrated into the superstructure. They are helpful, but they also severely limit your design options in some cases.

I totally agree with this, specially in BBs. I won't mind if they could house reasonably big guns, but most of them can only house 12-13" guns and some of them not even that, which severely limits their usefulness, as tat detail restrict them to very early dreadnoughts at best.

[Nick Thomadis]

Hi all, another request is confirmed/developed for the next update:
- Button for disabling auto-avoid of ships.

[Andvarus]

THANK YOU 

[Captain Meow]

1 hour ago, Nick Thomadis said:

Hi all, another request is confirmed/developed for the next update:
- Button for disabling auto-avoid of ships.

Maybe something like auto-avoid (but not excessive as now) if ships are under AI control, but auto-avoid switching off for a ship once it's manually controlled?

Would be nice to have in Settings an option for own ships to get damage from collision with each other. Same goes for enemy ships.

Edited January 28, 2022 by Captain Meow

[The PC Collector]

When is the beta for the major update to be expected? I wanna keep playing, but without long campaing I do not feel any motivation to do so.

[T_the_ferret]

On 1/19/2022 at 7:07 PM, T_the_ferret said:

@Nick Thomadis Could you please clarify if those are the things accepted only for next patch or overall (for later on)?

Gonna just post this again because i never got an answer

[Nick Thomadis]

15 minutes ago, T_the_ferret said:

Gonna just post this again because i never got an answer

Already many of those are available from 1.03. The rest on the next one or two patches.

[T_the_ferret]

Yes but i meant more is there a list of long term suggestions that have been accepted? For example more ship, ship type or changes to gameplay?

[DieHard_BR]

1 hour ago, The PC Collector said:

When is the beta for the major update to be expected? I wanna keep playing, but without long campaing I do not feel any motivation to do so.

Same here, already played both countries after 1.04.

Hope we can have the mega patch by middle of Feb.

[Whomst'd've]

Any chance where we could get a feature where we could select a bunch of guns to fire on the same salvo? So rather than having a wing turret and a centerline turret firing upon the same target at different times due to differing reload rates, reducing the chance of a hit, in the shipbuilder we could select a bunch of guns to fire on the same "salvo" which only happens once every gun is loaded in that "salvo". This could also be used to force secondary guns to fire in there own salvo as well. would be a nice quality of life feature to have. 

[Norbert Sattler]

It'd be nice to have a different firing modes. Full salvo, half salvo and fire-at-will for example.

Half salvo is good for finding the range or give a buff to accuracy in general, full salvoes could cause more damage instability and fire-at-will would come with a reload-speed buff, but accuracy debuff to blaze away at close range.

Naturally half-salvo would require a minimum amount of main-guns. A Pre-Dread with it's two twin turrets half salvoing makes little sense.

Naturally this would work a whole lot better if the center-line and wing turrets of the exact same kind of gun would not be treated as seperate, whether they are just put into a single group automatically or Whomst'd've's suggestion gets implemented.

[Kane]

1)  Please, for the love of God, do something to make the campaign last longer.  I have to sandbag the entire game to keep the war from ending almost immediately due to victory point differences in 40's campaign.  I have yet to be able to expand my shipyard and build a new big ship because the war always ends over my objection before I can get there.  Pretty much the same with research.

2)  Maybe, code ships that are assigned to screen another to actually screen and keep themselves between what they're screening and the enemy.  Friendly-fire from torpedoes is still a huge problem and this would do a lot to cure it.  Would also drastically reduce how OP torpedoes are in current game if screening ships did their job and forced enemy ships to have to get through them to get in a good torpedo firing position.  As it stands any ship cruiser, destroyer, etc told to screen my BB's or BC's will either hang out behind them, and invariably torpedo them.  Or wander off and do nothing useful.

3)  Please, for all that's holy.  Let us spend some of our starting money expanding our shipyard before the campaign beings. 

4)  The way AI prioritizes targets needs a serious overhaul.  Especially when many ships operate together.  Enemy capital ships ignore my own capital ships to fire on destroyers they'll never hit, and if they do it won't matter because destroyers are crewed by God and thus only sink when they want to.  Meanwhile as those big ships waste ammo trying to hit destroyers hiding behind my big ships, my big ships tear them apart.  Ships of all stripes waste torpedoes trying to hit small ships like DD's and CL's when much more valuable and less maneuverable targets are within range.  Cruisers and the like will impotently spew HE at battleships that don't even notice, while other cruisers and destroyers hang out much closer to them.  If there are transports in the area, ships of both stripes will blatantly ignore warships a kilometer away to shoot at transports barely in visible range.  This behavior makes battles incredibly easy to win.  Example below, won the war without losing a single warship.  Only lost transports when enemy spawned on top of them.  (Still a problem btw.)


Hard Difficulty, Random AI opponent.

 

Edited January 31, 2022 by Kane

[MiWe]

Can you give us a scrollbar on the campaign log. Wehn the ai goes on a building spree and lays down/designs dozens of new hulls a month, some events are lost from view.

[Hale]

Hi there!  I just picked up Dreadnoughts after enjoying Age of Sail immensely.   I'm new to the scene so I apologize in advance if this has already been discussed.   Most of my suggestions are formation keeping with some others thrown in:

1. Ships on screen or scout roles should make more of an effort to stay out of way of the Flagship division, or any division in a line of battle/player specified course. 
2.  Ships in a line of battle or manual control should not give way to ships on screen or scout roles.    I've seen a screening ship run the flagship division, including the flagship itself,  significantly off course as line of battle ships give way to their own screen and ruin the formation.    I realize that some ships may find themselves out of position due to player actions, but they should attempt to address this without disrupting the core formation. 
3. Please don't take this as a request to implement the 'waiting for group' logic from AoS, which causes me to break the division 99% of the time.  My request have the line of battle division do its best to stay up and stay together, but not override the player settings to keep formation. 
4. Screening and scouting ships seems to bump into each other a good bit.   I'd suggest smaller ships give way to larger ones, and scouting ships give way to screening ships.
5. I notice that the ships speed and rudder (non-manual) settings are overridden to avoid friendly or hostile collisions.   If the ship has a line drawn by the player it should stay on that line at the specified speed.
6. Please make changing the lead ship on the event of significant damage or flooding optional, maybe a button in the corner?
7. Avoid torpedoes does not seem to do much. 🙂
8. In the campaign I researched gun cotton, but it was only an option for my torpedo boats.  I'm not sure if this is intended, but new designs of any other class did not have it. 
9. I believe I copied a ship design to a new one and ended up with a date of 1890 instead of the current year. 

 

[Captain Meow]

1 hour ago, Hale said:

Please make changing the lead ship on the event of significant damage or flooding optional, maybe a button in the corner?

 

Agreed. Very annoying that when there's some engine damage or flooding happens to the lead ship, I suddenly lose control over it (when I was about to do something important with it) & the ship begins getting out of it's position (often getting hit by torpedoes or receiving more damage). I have to press pause, detach that ship from the division & then return the manual control of it.

So a some notification would be nice. Like "lead ship etc damaged, make etc ship the new lead ship?" with option to agree or continue controlling the ship. Or however it could be implemented, just don't suddenly strip the player of a lead ship, messing up the situation.

Especially when I set the CL division to go there & attack etc, I switch over to another division, after a while I go check the CLs & see it got completely messed up because there's new lead ship now while the original one got damaged & while getting out of it's position it got damaged even more than if it was following the course I gave it.

Edited January 30, 2022 by Captain Meow

[The PC Collector]

5 hours ago, Captain Meow said:

 

Agreed. Very annoying that when there's some engine damage or flooding happens to the lead ship, I suddenly lose control over it (when I was about to do something important with it) & the ship begins getting out of it's position (often getting hit by torpedoes or receiving more damage). I have to press pause, detach that ship from the division & then return the manual control of it.

So a some notification would be nice. Like "lead ship etc damaged, make etc ship the new lead ship?" with option to agree or continue controlling the ship. Or however it could be implemented, just don't suddenly strip the player of a lead ship, messing up the situation.

Especially when I set the CL division to go there & attack etc, I switch over to another division, after a while I go check the CLs & see it got completely messed up because there's new lead ship now while the original one got damaged & while getting out of it's position it got damaged even more than if it was following the course I gave it.

It's even worse for torpedo boats/destroyers... I can even recall how many assaults have I failed because of the lead ship retreating when she was about to be in range to torpedo the enemy capital ship to death.

[TheBestBanana]

Having floodable upper compartments would add a lot to the realism and mechanics of the game. It would nerf TBs because a large shell or torpedo hits would open up all three levels. It would also make it so you can actually sink a ship if they aren't broad side. You would have to add something so that it can detect when an upper compartment is under water. The change would help smooth out game play.

Edited January 31, 2022 by TheBestBanana

[Adm.Hawklyn]

I still think that costs and weights are perhaps a tad high for some of the various components. Especially in the custom battle designer.

Also, maybe a gameplay setting for campaign that suits those who may not care for micromanaging every single battle would be nice. I mean, its much easier to play the battles as it is, but there are a few like myself who dislike micro-management to that level. Besides, its not exactly realistic that the overall minister/secretary of the Navy would be flying around to every battle just to direct it. But, that being said, it is far easier to do battle in this game than rtw. All I'm really looking for is a revision of the auto resolve coding a bit. I say this because I had completed a 1930 campaign on 1.02 I think, and that got reset, and I'm having issues attempting to complete the campaign with minimal battle management.

That being said, I may bite the bullet and manage a few more battles.... I used to like micromanagement, but then I got older.. Ya know? Anyway, looking forward to the next update. Also Hoping that there will be a change in campaign mode once all the nations are in to a 1890-1950ish campaign... These 10 year micro campaigns are okay, but the true prize is the extended full 20-60 year long campaign complete with options that depend on when one starts, what nation one starts with.

Stuff like...

Sino-Japanese war - China or Japan if starting at 1890

Spanish-American war - America or Spain if 1890 or 1900 start

Ruso-Japanese war - Japan or Russia at 1910 start, aka Treaty of Portsmouth

WW1/ Treaty of Versailles- Any nation start at 1920

WNT- Also Any Nation start in 1920, This would likely not apply to Germany as their navy was rendered moot, but would make sense of a hard start campaign. Also would not apply to China or Russia with a 1920 start.

Just some additional thoughts.

[Kane]

Also.

Please, fix, stop, remove, disjoin from existence, etc whatever it is that causes my current ship/formation selection to be de-selected when one of my ships is sunk.  It is incredibly infuriating to have things de-selected when you're in the middle of dodging torpedoes.  I've eaten a lot of torpedoes specifically because of this.

[Toby]

7 hours ago, Adm.Hawklyn said:

I still think that costs and weights are perhaps a tad high for some of the various components. Especially in the custom battle designer.

Also, maybe a gameplay setting for campaign that suits those who may not care for micromanaging every single battle would be nice. I mean, its much easier to play the battles as it is, but there are a few like myself who dislike micro-management to that level. Besides, its not exactly realistic that the overall minister/secretary of the Navy would be flying around to every battle just to direct it. But, that being said, it is far easier to do battle in this game than rtw. All I'm really looking for is a revision of the auto resolve coding a bit. I say this because I had completed a 1930 campaign on 1.02 I think, and that got reset, and I'm having issues attempting to complete the campaign with minimal battle management.

That being said, I may bite the bullet and manage a few more battles.... I used to like micromanagement, but then I got older.. Ya know? Anyway, looking forward to the next update. Also Hoping that there will be a change in campaign mode once all the nations are in to a 1890-1950ish campaign... These 10 year micro campaigns are okay, but the true prize is the extended full 20-60 year long campaign complete with options that depend on when one starts, what nation one starts with.

Stuff like...

Sino-Japanese war - China or Japan if starting at 1890

Spanish-American war - America or Spain if 1890 or 1900 start

Ruso-Japanese war - Japan or Russia at 1910 start, aka Treaty of Portsmouth

WW1/ Treaty of Versailles- Any nation start at 1920

WNT- Also Any Nation start in 1920, This would likely not apply to Germany as their navy was rendered moot, but would make sense of a hard start campaign. Also would not apply to China or Russia with a 1920 start.

Just some additional thoughts.

while i love many of your campaign ideas @Nick Thomadisand the team have said a number of times that the final campaign will be a global map that starts in 1890 and goes to around 1940 or 50ish thus many many of your ideas can or could occur naturaully during someones campign

[Maluetar]

Please add an option to save/load export/import ship designs in custom battles.

[Adm.Hawklyn]

I see, I kinda figured that they'd be following some plan.. Good to know...

 

But the weights and costs do need adjusting. I'm not convinced the weights are accurate, not to mention the costs aspects on structure, components and guns...