>>> v1.06-1.08+ Feedback<<<(17/8/2022)

[Kebla]

steam does not install 1.08.5 for me,how di I install the new update?

[The PC Collector]

2 minutes ago, Kebla said:

steam does not install 1.08.5 for me,how di I install the new update?

It is very fast, maybe you didn't even notice? If you're 100% positive it didn't install, try restarting steam.

[o Barão]

@Nick Thomadis issue with armor weight, new mechanic found.

test

• Place the same value in armored belt and 1st inner belt.
• Increase 0.2cm
• Check the difference in weight.

40 cm armored belt. 41530 tons. Let's increase 0.2cm.

41665 tons. 41665-41530= 135 tons difference for 0.2 increment in this situation/example.

Now if we do the same with the 1st inner belt armor we get a different result.

40 cm 1st inner belt. 74115 tons. Let's increase 0.2cm.

74136 tons. 74136-74115= 21 tons difference for 0.2 increment.

Conclusion:

The new weight mechanic for armor, doesn't work for the citadel armor.

[Kebla]

27 minuti fa, The PC Collector ha dichiarato:

È velocissimo, forse non te ne sei nemmeno accorto? Se sei sicuro al 100% che non sia stato installato, prova a riavviare Steam.

Nel gioco c'è ancora scritto 1.08.42i se ricordo bene, non 1.08.5, ho provato a ricaricare Steam but ancora niente, riproverò più tardi

Edited July 29, 2022 by Kebla

[The PC Collector]

Also, with Germany the issue of unlocking Battleship III before Battleship II persists. Is not like I would use Battleship III at all if I unlocked Battleship II before, but it is there.

Edited July 29, 2022 by The PC Collector

[Nick Thomadis]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

@Nick Thomadis issue with armor weight, new mechanic found.

test

• Place the same value in armored belt and 1st inner belt.
• Increase 0.2cm
• Check the difference in weight.

40 cm armored belt. 41530 tons. Let's increase 0.2cm.

41665 tons. 41665-41530= 135 tons difference for 0.2 increment in this situation/example.

Now if we do the same with the 1st inner belt armor we get a different result.

40 cm 1st inner belt. 74115 tons. Let's increase 0.2cm.

74136 tons. 74136-74115= 21 tons difference for 0.2 increment.

Conclusion:

The new weight mechanic for armor, doesn't work for the citadel armor.

Citadel armor costs much less weight, simply. It is exponential but due to the smaller radius, it does not cost the same in weight.

EDIT:
But will check if there is something that does not work as expected.

EDIT2:
No, it is just a matter of balance. If the inner layer armor needs bigger weight, it can be done by the new system.

[o Barão]

25 minutes ago, Nick Thomadis said:

 It is exponential but due to the smaller radius, it does not cost the same in weight.

Oh, I see. Makes sense. Thank you!

[ZorinW]

@Nick Thomadis When can we expect a fix for this?

[Toby]

16 minutes ago, ZorinW said:

@Nick Thomadis When can we expect a fix for this?

at the moment until the game implements building up ports indivisually rather then based upon the economy of the nation. the ports will always be smaller in more remote ports

[ZorinW]

3 minutes ago, Toby said:

at the moment until the game implements building up ports indivisually rather then based upon the economy of the nation. the ports will always be smaller in more remote ports

That has nothing to do with implementing a hard cap on the tonnage you can put in a port, which should be equal to the port capacity.

[Kiknurazz91]

Well it was fun but for some odd reason I cant seem to get more than 30knots out of any battleship without it being grossly overweight unless I put 14in or less guns on it and paper thin armor. The weight balancing is all haywire none of the ships I have designed in custom battle just a month ago can be used as they are grossly overweight now. If realism is what the goal is then give us the ability to build real-life ships exactly how they were built in WW2. Otherwise give the option back to have two unrealistically designed ships to duke it out in custom battle. Like two 20in battleships with outrageous armor duking it out at 5000m lol. That was fun make the campaign real but leave custom battle alone that was where creativity was fun.

[Kiknurazz91]

10 hours ago, Panzergraf said:

You could reduce firepower by mounting smaller and/or fewer guns to get the same armor. Overall that will make ships less vulnerable than before, as protection remains the same but firepower is reduced.

ok so at that point our ships could survive longer yes but our overall damage will be cut so battles will take longer and drag on in already long battles. I tried to design a fuso class with the same armament and armor scheme as it was in RL and it was still way overweight, I had to reduce the armor down 3in further than RL in order to fit the appropriate guns on it. The adjustments have screwed something up somewhere and its not adding up. 

[Kiknurazz91]

9 hours ago, ZorinW said:

I am not sure what the problem is. You want more armor than was historically applied? Sure, you can do that, but now you have to make sacrifices in other areas, which is perfectly fine.

Also, BBs are not really the main target of this change anyway. It's the DDs and CLs that could be maxed out armorwise and yet stay easily within displacement limits.

But the change did really affect BB designs and historically applied sure that could work in campaign but why custom battle as well?  I was persuaded to get this game because I could design custom battleships and other ships now custom battle has become campaign battle. If this game is going towards pure realism with no mode for a little bit of unrealism then many people are not going to keep playing it. There has to be some sort of creative freedom with out so much realism you get bored.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Kiknurazz91

[Werwaz]

Quote

Hello Admirals,

We have repaired a major problem that caused lag and crashes, especially in the campaign. Furthermore, we offer fixes and improvements that you recently requested. Please take a look at the changelog.

*v1.08.5 Hotfix*

FIXES
*Repaired the memory leak issue:* The memory consumption increased while you held a part and hovered on the mount. When you spent a lot of time designing ships by hand, this memory leak could accumulate to very high values, affecting game performance and even crashing the game.
Repaired problems of the auto-design which could cause too long campaign turns when building ships.
Fixed issue of the not updated flag for ships you gained with war reparations.
Fixed problem of no dissipation for the income loss due to sunk transports, causing incurable financial collapse, especially to the AI.
Fixed problem that caused ships in a formation to not avoid other obstacles and prefer to move straight.
Fixed bug that prevented adding armor in some 5-inch barbettes.
Fixed bug that highlighted all the ship cards when entering the ship design interface.
Fixed bug that could cause torpedoes or guns to be fired on the opposite side of the ship, when the target was too near.

BALANCES/IMPROVEMENTS
Improved Refit mechanics and UI so now you can copy a refit to create a new design. Additionally, more information is given in the “Refit” button on why some ships can or cannot be refitted.
Improved penetration mechanics so that the shell terminal velocity is more accurately affecting the penetration and angle of hit.
Improved ship physics and their motion at sea.
Reduced the weight of Radio/Hydrophone/Sonar and increased their cost respectively.
Increased the cost of Radar.
AI targeting fine tuning.
Shell dispersion improvements.
Slight adjustment to citadel weight modifiers.
Armor weight adjustments to rise exponentially and prevent the creation of unrealistic ships with too much unnatural armor for the size of the ship.

Enjoy!
The Game-Labs Team

There's plenty of good in this,  but some of it I think is detrimental to my enjoyment of the game. 

The Good:

• all of the bug fixes
• rebalanced costs for radios, sonars and radars (radios were basically dead weight)
• hulls are properly balanced (no more 25% aft weight offset)
• "select a ship of the required type" bug is fixed (thank you very much!)

 

The Bad:

• huge armor nerf- totally unnecessary, since armor was heavy enough, and now most heavily armored all-or-nothing builds are no longer possible, so much so that most ships built to historical specs are now overweight, and super battleships can not be properly armored against their own guns. If the reason for this nerf is in fact the AI, I think it would be a lot better if the AI used more armor on their ships rather than force the players  to use AI levels of armor. Too often in that past I would just smash AI ships because they didn't have enough armor, and the fight was a lot more challenging when I would pit two of my own ships against each other because they were far better protected than any AI clown car. If it was for realism, most recreations of real ships are overweight, and it is not too far off to assume that ships within the super battleship bracket within UAD (100k+ tons), which had only one real-life concept, notably H44, would have most likely been using 20+ inch main armor belts and 10+ inch main decks, which is not utterly impossible, and now these ships can be easily penned by normal size battleships, which defeats the whole point of building super BBs. As for smaller ships being armored too heavily, they already have armor caps, and their armor can be defeated by the guns of a bigger ship, as well as battleship HE. In essence, the armor nerf fixed a problem that wasn't there, nobody had asked to be fixed as far as I know, and created a few more problems in its place. 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Werwaz

[Werwaz]

12 minutes ago, Werwaz said:

There's plenty of good in this,  but some of it that I think is detrimental to my enjoyment of the game. 

The Good:

• all of the bug fixes
• rebalanced costs for radios, sonars and radars (radios were basically dead weight)
• hulls are properly balanced (no more 25% aft weight offset)
• "select a ship of the required type" bug is fixed (thank you very much!)

 

The Bad:

• huge armor nerf- totally unnecessary, since armor was heavy enough, and now most heavily armored all-or-nothing builds are no longer possible, so much so that most ships built to historical specs are now overweight, and super battleships can not be properly armored against their own guns. If the reason for this nerf is in fact the AI, I think it would be a lot better if the AI used more armor on their ships rather than force the players  to use AI levels of armor. Too often in that past I would just smash AI ships because they didn't have enough armor, and the fight was a lot more challenging when I would pit two of my own ships against each other because they were far better protected than any AI clown car. If it was for realism, most recreations of real ships are overweight, and it is not too far off to assume that ships within the super battleship bracket within UAD (100k+ tons), which had only one real-life concept, notably H44, would have most likely been using 20+ inch main armor belts and 10+ inch main decks, which is not utterly impossible, and now these ships can be easily penned by normal size battleships, which defeats the whole point of building super BBs. As for smaller ships being armored too heavily, they already have armor caps, and their armor can be defeated by the guns of a bigger ship, as well as battleship HE. In essence, the armor nerf fixed a problem that wasn't there, nobody had asked to be fixed as far as I know, and created a few more problems in its place. 

I was playing a custom battle, and the AI decided that 10 inches of belt armor was enough to protect 19.4 inch guns...

I think the Artificial Stupidity of an AI is more the problem than armor being too light. 

[The PC Collector]

3 hours ago, ZorinW said:

That has nothing to do with implementing a hard cap on the tonnage you can put in a port, which should be equal to the port capacity.

I disagree with the hard cap. That would be unhistorical, because you can anchor your ships around the port if you need to exceed the capacity, and speaking only of the game would make those small ports worthless. For example right now, I'm fighting againts Italy as Germany. Without overusing Tunis and Bizerte, that war would be a hell. I however agree that there should be a real cost on doing so. The problem is that right now, the penalty for exceeding the tonnage of a port is static, when it should should be dinamic: The more you exceed the tonnage cap, the bigger is the maintenance cost penalty.

 

48 minutes ago, Werwaz said:

The Bad:

• huge armor nerf- totally unnecessary, since armor was heavy enough, and now most heavily armored all-or-nothing builds are no longer possible, so much so that most ships built to historical specs are now overweight, and super battleships can not be properly armored against their own guns. If the reason for this nerf is in fact the AI, I think it would be a lot better if the AI used more armor on their ships rather than force the players  to use AI levels of armor. Too often in that past I would just smash AI ships because they didn't have enough armor, and the fight was a lot more challenging when I would pit two of my own ships against each other because they were far better protected than any AI clown car. If it was for realism, most recreations of real ships are overweight, and it is not too far off to assume that ships within the super battleship bracket within UAD (100k+ tons), which had only one real-life concept, notably H44, would have most likely been using 20+ inch main armor belts and 10+ inch main decks, which is not utterly impossible, and now these ships can be easily penned by normal size battleships, which defeats the whole point of building super BBs. As for smaller ships being armored too heavily, they already have armor caps, and their armor can be defeated by the guns of a bigger ship, as well as battleship HE. In essence, the armor nerf fixed a problem that wasn't there, nobody had asked to be fixed as far as I know, and created a few more problems in its place. 

It can be said louder, but not better or clearer. I subscribe this word by word.

[Skeksis]

In general all weights are inflated, hulls, towers, turrets, components, etc.

Take the HMS King George V hull Modern Battleship I, the lowest available weight is 45000 tons but IRL it was 42000 tons. Some historical hulls are on par but mostly all hulls are overweight to start with. 

All components are overweight to be balanced for game tonnage designing limitations. 

But now armor has to be historically accurate but everything else is still above tier. This doesn't make any sense.

Armor too has to have its inflated values. 

-1

Edited July 29, 2022 by Skeksis

[o Barão]

45 minutes ago, Werwaz said:

I was playing a custom battle, and the AI decided that 10 inches of belt armor was enough to protect 19.4 inch guns...

I think the Artificial Stupidity of an AI is more the problem than armor being too light. 

This is a good example, IMO, about the current issue situation around the armor.

• What players think is needed.
• What was used IRL.

 

1st - real life perspective

   That is not a light armor scheme. In fact is very heavy to what was build in the past. If we compare to Bismarck as an example. (similar weight +/-)

The armor belt is 10 inches, compared to the 12 inches in the Bismarck. However, the deck armor is double the size in comparison! The turrets are 25 inches!!!! (Bismarck had 14.2 inches of turret armor in comparison) The 1st and 2nd inner belt values are similar.

So is this a light armor scheme?🤔

 

2nd - Gameplay perspective

In game, from my experience, is light. And that is why since the beginning I tend to focus in having an armored belt with 16 inches or higher. Doesn't matter what year it is. 1890? 16 inches iron plate. 1910? 16 inches Krupp IV armor and if possible with a citadel component only to increase the armor quality % value.

 

But why this?

• Players are used to have high armor values because the game simply allowed them since the beginning. Even if it is unrealistic.
• Players know from experience, the only way to assure the ship is well protected is to increase the armor belt/deck.

 

Players know the way to defeat the AI is to have more accurate guns and ships well protected to defeat the enemy shells. Quality always wins quantity in this game.

This for me is the key point. The devs are trying in the last months to bring new mechanics to help the AI in combat by balancing the player with the AI ship designs. First with the citadel mechanics and now with the armor rebalance. Of course, in the middle came the barrel length mechanic, that only made the AI weaker and the combat more dumb. (let's ignore that part 😒)

 

But the question I make is this. Isn't the best interest to have an enemy capable of challenging us in battle? If the mechanic tries to balance both designs and at the same time bring more realism to the game, is that a bad thing? Or you guys prefer to keep playing an arcade game and shooting fish in a barrel?

[Lakel]

5 hours ago, Toby said:

at the moment until the game implements building up ports indivisually rather then based upon the economy of the nation. the ports will always be smaller in more remote ports

Issue   ive seen there myself is the task forces decide to go to the nearest port for repairs, like Gibraltar. or Cyprus. Said ports cannot sustain or repair them, but they try anyways leaving the TF locked for some time at great expense.

[jw62]

1.The Armor nerf really was out of bounds. My diesel DD's and my cruisers all lightened up, I was able to put some armor on my fast cruisers, put the rdf back in on top of the gen2 radar, but the battleships are all 2-4000 tons overweight. I'm running a 96,000 ton BB at historic 32 kts on geared turbines 2 with 14.9" or plain old long 14's and WTF. Should be able to carry more than moderate armor and 16" at that speed

2.The hobby horsing to the 3d models is annoying and wrong. I felt seasick (not really). Boats, even severely imbalanced boats don't pitch fore and aft that much, not even a 7' opti. This is a two parter, because I also think the wave simulation needs refinement, and it will go hand in hand.

First off on big boat pitching, power most especially, they are glued down aft by the props and laminar flow. Once the Ocean is flowing through your blades it's not going to like letting go, it takes a lot to break the flow. So big and certainly powerful ships tend to pitch from the rear, and the physical effects of that longer arm means the boat has a heavier but slower pitch motion, with the pivot just forward of the props, say 5% waterline length in front, because thats the zone feeding the wheels. hey, pull the power off and she bobs and weaves like any sailor leaving the bar, but at cruise and higher the boats have a physical connection with the ocean that damps all that other stuff out or down

Second is the simulation of the waves themselves. I look at the scale, and it's way over. I know that ocean wave height can be pretty high but the distance between wave tops is measured in ship lengths or miles, and the wave height you've got is 2-3 times oversize. I'm not sure you can model rollers 2 miles across, and the ocean modeling looks pretty good, but I think the ships would look better, and the ship motion would look better and be more realistic, if you laid those seas down a bit, and by a bit I mean 30 to 50% of what you have now.

 

 

[Skeksis]

2 hours ago, o Barão said:

But the question I make is this. Isn't the best interest to have an enemy capable of challenging us in battle? If the mechanic tries to balance both designs and at the same time bring more realism to the game, is that a bad thing? Or you guys prefer to keep playing an arcade game and shooting fish in a barrel?

This is exactly where NA has gone wrong and this is UADs first step at following suit. I.e. Making too many changes.

I agree that Dev's have got everything right so far and I'm one for endorsing as such but IMO this would qualify as a change too far. Throughout, all inflationary weights must be consistent.

Sooner or later and as not to repeat, Dev's must start locking down features. 

Edited July 29, 2022 by Skeksis

[The PC Collector]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

This for me is the key point. The devs are trying in the last months to bring new mechanics to help the AI in combat by balancing the player with the AI ship designs. First with the citadel mechanics and now with the armor rebalance. Of course, in the middle came the barrel length mechanic, that only made the AI weaker and the combat more dumb. (let's ignore that part 😒)

 

But the question I make is this. Isn't the best interest to have an enemy capable of challenging us in battle? If the mechanic tries to balance both designs and at the same time bring more realism to the game, is that a bad thing? Or you guys prefer to keep playing an arcade game and shooting fish in a barrel?

No. They should focus on make the AI competent, instead of artificially limiting the player. For example, setting minimums to the AI speeds based on the era, forcing to refit and make new designs each set amount of time, forcing to use the newest hulls and maxed displacements... things like that. If quality alwasy beat quantity in this game, then AI should always build quality. The way the game works, it is not hard to code. Forcing the the playet to go down to the AI's level only will cripple the game, as anything which limits gameplay options is bad for a game which is advertised as "sandbox". I have never been for the uber armour meta (my 1890 bb had 280 mm of armour, and my 1898 one had 320, which aren't crazy values for pre dreds) and yet I had to cripple them when I refitted them after the "balance". So now, only either turtles with pew pew guns, like UK infantry tanks, or glass cannons can be made. Balanced BBs are almost impossible to design now.

Edited July 29, 2022 by The PC Collector

[o Barão]

26 minutes ago, Skeksis said:

This is exactly where NA has gone wrong and this is UADs first step at following suit. I.e. Making too many changes.

You are comparing a multiplayer game to a single player game. I agree that there were many changes to NA that made many players angry. And truth be told, they were right in many situations. Farming woods for many hours and forcing the player to be part of a guild just to have a chance to build the ship they wanted, and suddenly a new patch is released and change all the meta? Many things to dislike.

 

However, in single player game is not the same thing. First, let's not forget that we are still in EA. Every mechanic can be changed or improved, and I hope to see this happening until the game is released. Now the big difference is the fact you are playing a single player game with a campaign that can be played in a week or less. We have changes to the mechanics? So what? They are the same for you and the AI. You are not wasting hundreds of hours sailing from an island to another to farm woods in open sea afraid of being ganked. You are not afraid a new patch will drop and completely ruin hours of gameplay. Just go to the dockyard and spend a few minutes to design a new ship. Different realities. One thing doesn't apply to the other game.

42 minutes ago, The PC Collector said:

If quality alwasy beat quantity in this game, then AI should always build quality.

BINGO!! This is the key argument IMO.

So let's digest what it means:

 

• My ships are much superior in comparison to the AI.
• One key aspect to the superiority in my designs is how well armored my capital ships.
• My ships are so well armored that a few of them can sink entire enemy fleets without any chance of counter-play.
• I don't care if the armor values are unrealistic, it works great, so in conclusion I am right in what I am doing.

 

So with this in mind, I offer you 2 options.

option A:

• All AI capital ships will only sail with maximum Bulkheads
• All AI capital ships will only sail with a minimum 20-inches armor belt and 20-inches deck armor.
• Doesn't matter if the values are complete fantasy bullshit. If it works for me, will work for the AI.

Quality over quantity, right?

And now you are sailing in fantasy BS ships, fighting battles against fantasy BS ships so hard to sink, with players flooding the forums complaining about how hard it is to sink those damn fantasy BS designs.

Or we can have the other option...

option B:

• Implement and rework mechanics to balance the designs from both the player and AI with historical numbers.
• Still allows the player or the AI to go crazy with armor values, but not without a huge penalty.
• Force the player to have choices in the designing process, making it more interesting instead of just using everything A quality grade, with completely unrealistic values to what was possible to ever be build IRL.

 

So what will be your choice?

- To have the AI to build fantasy bullshit ships the same way we do?

- To bring a common sense to what was possible to be build to realistic values?

[Rucki]

40 minutes ago, o Barão said:

You are comparing a multiplayer game to a single player game. I agree that there were many changes to NA that made many players angry. And truth be told, they were right in many situations. Farming woods for many hours and forcing the player to be part of a guild just to have a chance to build the ship they wanted, and suddenly a new patch is released and change all the meta? Many things to dislike.

 

However, in single player game is not the same thing. First, let's not forget that we are still in EA. Every mechanic can be changed or improved, and I hope to see this happening until the game is released. Now the big difference is the fact you are playing a single player game with a campaign that can be played in a week or less. We have changes to the mechanics? So what? They are the same for you and the AI. You are not wasting hundreds of hours sailing from an island to another to farm woods in open sea afraid of being ganked. You are not afraid a new patch will drop and completely ruin hours of gameplay. Just go to the dockyard and spend a few minutes to design a new ship. Different realities. One thing doesn't apply to the other game.

BINGO!! This is the key argument IMO.

So let's digest what it means:

 

• My ships are much superior in comparison to the AI.
• One key aspect to the superiority in my designs is how well armored my capital ships.
• My ships are so well armored that a few of them can sink entire enemy fleets without any chance of counter-play.
• I don't care if the armor values are unrealistic, it works great, so in conclusion I am right in what I am doing.

 

So with this in mind, I offer you 2 options.

option A:

• All AI capital ships will only sail with maximum Bulkheads
• All AI capital ships will only sail with a minimum 20-inches armor belt and 20-inches deck armor.
• Doesn't matter if the values are complete fantasy bullshit. If it works for me, will work for the AI.

Quality over quantity, right?

And now you are sailing in fantasy BS ships, fighting battles against fantasy BS ships so hard to sink, with players flooding the forums complaining about how hard it is to sink those damn fantasy BS designs.

Or we can have the other option...

option B:

• Implement and rework mechanics to balance the designs from both the player and AI with historical numbers.
• Still allows the player or the AI to go crazy with armor values, but not without a huge penalty.
• Force the player to have choices in the designing process, making it more interesting instead of just using everything A quality grade, with completely unrealistic values to what was possible to ever be build IRL.

 

So what will be your choice?

- To have the AI to build fantasy bullshit ships the same way we do?

- To bring a common sense to what was possible to be build to realistic values?

What would also help I think is rebalancing the Budget + rebalancing lighter ships like CLs.
No matter which nation I start with (mostly 1890 or 1900 campaign) I always build the best possible BB ship I can, whatever is the biggest and highest markX gun will be used, newest technology ? sure, the costs doesnt matter and how long the ship needs to be build also doesnt really matter. Theres too much money available.

CAs ? Useless because less stable = less hit chance on guns and between 1890 and 1930 the most important thing is to actually hit anything with your guns.

CLs ? Forget those, they cant hit house 10m away, if you want them to be faster than 20 knots they cant even hit a house 1m away because you will need 3 funnels which will be something like 80 to 120 smoke interference. .
Next huge problem with CLs is that they can only use 1 barrel secondary guns until very late in campagin (currently am in 1924  and still dont have the tech, although researching it for years, but of course my capital ships can already use 3 barrel guns.

TBs ? They are cost effective, loosing 2 or 3 to sink a BB isnt too bad, but I dont use them personally as I dont want to micro 20 TBs in the battles.

But the AI is using all these ships and this also a big problem. Even if they would be using high quality player like BBs, they would still not be capable to produce enough because they give so much money away to CAs and CLs which have no use at all in campaign at the moment until 1930.

Today I was playing some Hearts of Iron 4 with Italy and I had to stop the game and really think about for some minutes how I will design my next CLs and DDs because I lost both in much too high numbers (for my economy) against the British and needed some fast reeinforcements for my Task forces, so in the end I decided for the cheapest design possible to get them as fast as possible on the sea. Maybe not the best design but at least my BBs and CAs had some ships to screen them and in the end it worked good enough to give me time until I closed the mediterranean sea through invading Gibraltar and Suez.
UA:Dreadnoughts should try to give similiar situations to the player. Building high quality or cheap and fast production should always be something to think about.
Although I guess thats way harder in an dynamic campaign, compared to a already set up scenario like ww2.

 

[ZorinW]

1 hour ago, o Barão said:

You are comparing a multiplayer game to a single player game. I agree that there were many changes to NA that made many players angry. And truth be told, they were right in many situations. Farming woods for many hours and forcing the player to be part of a guild just to have a chance to build the ship they wanted, and suddenly a new patch is released and change all the meta? Many things to dislike.

 

However, in single player game is not the same thing. First, let's not forget that we are still in EA. Every mechanic can be changed or improved, and I hope to see this happening until the game is released. Now the big difference is the fact you are playing a single player game with a campaign that can be played in a week or less. We have changes to the mechanics? So what? They are the same for you and the AI. You are not wasting hundreds of hours sailing from an island to another to farm woods in open sea afraid of being ganked. You are not afraid a new patch will drop and completely ruin hours of gameplay. Just go to the dockyard and spend a few minutes to design a new ship. Different realities. One thing doesn't apply to the other game.

BINGO!! This is the key argument IMO.

So let's digest what it means:

 

• My ships are much superior in comparison to the AI.
• One key aspect to the superiority in my designs is how well armored my capital ships.
• My ships are so well armored that a few of them can sink entire enemy fleets without any chance of counter-play.
• I don't care if the armor values are unrealistic, it works great, so in conclusion I am right in what I am doing.

 

So with this in mind, I offer you 2 options.

option A:

• All AI capital ships will only sail with maximum Bulkheads
• All AI capital ships will only sail with a minimum 20-inches armor belt and 20-inches deck armor.
• Doesn't matter if the values are complete fantasy bullshit. If it works for me, will work for the AI.

Quality over quantity, right?

And now you are sailing in fantasy BS ships, fighting battles against fantasy BS ships so hard to sink, with players flooding the forums complaining about how hard it is to sink those damn fantasy BS designs.

Or we can have the other option...

option B:

• Implement and rework mechanics to balance the designs from both the player and AI with historical numbers.
• Still allows the player or the AI to go crazy with armor values, but not without a huge penalty.
• Force the player to have choices in the designing process, making it more interesting instead of just using everything A quality grade, with completely unrealistic values to what was possible to ever be build IRL.

 

So what will be your choice?

- To have the AI to build fantasy bullshit ships the same way we do?

- To bring a common sense to what was possible to be build to realistic values?

OPTION B - 1000%