-=Thank you for the participation in our 6-month Roadmap=-

[Schmitty21]

Some ideas I had for diplomacy.

A diplomacy option where the navy encourages a national policy.

The options would be Expansionist, Neutral (or similar), and Isolationist.

With Expansionist selected there would be increased dice rolls for events to conquer neighboring minor nations or ungoverned territories. Gameplay penalties would be based on government type. For Democracies each invasion would increase dissent dramatically. For Nationalists it would raise tensions with any non Nationalist government, especially Democracies, rapidly. For Monarchies it would be a combination of the two, rising dissent and increased tension with both Nationalists and Democracies.

Neutral would invade minor states rarely, maintain their overseas territories, and be more likely to support nations they are friendly with in war. 

Isolationist will never get a dice roll to invade a minor nation. Any overseas territories or colonies they possess will have a chance of peacefully gaining independence and then allying with your nation. They will be less likely to aid friendly nations in war.

[Captain Vlad]

Just started playing about a week ago.  I am obsessed, and damn you all for taking away things like sleep and other games or forms of media.

My suggestions are as follows.

1.  I would love some improvements to the information given by the game so far as the direction of the enemy is concerned before they're in direct visual range.  At the moment it tells us a rough direction the enemy's smoke is in;  I don't know how difficult it would be to let us see the smoke for ourselves, but if that's not practical I would suggest that the game give you both more precise directions towards the smoke (north-northeast or south-southeast, as examples, though what I'd really like is a relative bearing) and what direction the smoke seems to be moving.  This would make intercepts of enemies trying to escape easier, but not automatic, in my opinion.

2. I would like to add my voice to the calls for something like a pre-generated ship list for AI countries, though I appreciate with varying levels of research that might be difficult while maintaining the ability to develop better tech than your opponent's or make use of what you have more effectively.  I feel it could work if there was a variation of the same designs with varying grades of armor, engines, etc, but I'm not a game designer.

3. I know the focus is on the Navy, the ships and blowing up fleets, but more options for national diplomacy would be awesome, especially where minor nations are concerned.  In the game, I would be willing to spend money or involve myself in conflicts if it meant keeping certain minor nation allies on my side, for example, and would love to have the option.

4. I believe I read that some UI improvements are coming.  I would suggest the ability to view all ships of a certain design from the design page, with their refit status, age, damage levels, etc. be included in this.  I also feel like the mothballing process should be more obvious.

5. The ability to use maritime camouflage patterns, different peacetime paint schemes, decorative flags, etc. would be fun.  Not a huge priority, but I love customization and that'd just add to the fun of designing your own ships.

6. Let us manually rename our own existing ships.

7.  I also feel like the ability to keep producing ships smaller than destroyers as the game progresses would be a nice addition.  Patrol boats, minelayers, mine hunters, torpedo, destroyer escorts, corvettes, frigate, etc. all existed well past the heyday of the torpedo boat, and could make for fun scenarios where, for example, you have to fight off enemy convoy raiders with them.

My thanks to your team for this game.

 

 

[Nagato]

Didnt add anything in months since didnt play that much due job. However here are few things i think should be improved. While end turn is fixed (mostly) turn calculations are faster and so far it never stop or crash during the turn end. It could be a bit faster but i guess when you have tons of nations fighting each other, building stuff and repair... it takes time to calculate which is ok. Loading screen however is something that is slower. Whenever i enter battle and battle ends, it take considerably more time to return to main screen, same when you exit your naval yards (as i call ship design menu) it take quite a lot of time, same when you want to go to main menu.  Other then that its okay.

 

What i think should be added to the game, some of this is already added at first page but still:

- New map, the current one is quite chaotic

- More ports, or at least giving manual options of upgrading the existing ports, enlarging them so that more ships can be built,

- Having designated shipyard (in ports, thus making those cities more imporatnt) and ability to upgrade them

- Research tree need to be updated, or at least changed, current one is ok but it can always be better

- More optioins for land wars, ability to when enemy invade you, you can actually send amount of troops to stop or hold it, automatic as it is now is not good.

- Adding manual submarine combat, yes i know that need a lot of time and even redesign some points of game but automatic combat sucks.

- Adding submarine hulls so that they can be designed as well. Would so much like to make my own variant of Uboats.

- Adding transport hulls so that they can be designed as well. Transport ships are essential for economy in this game and creating different types for different purposes is actually good idea.

- Adding more hulls and parts. Some hulls are already announced but frankly it is still impossible to create some famous shiops accuratly, like Nelson, Kongo, Nagato ... not only its impossible to fully scale down to apropriate tonnage but there is no parts that suit them. Sure you can make Kongo like she was in 1914s (close to it) but no chance to create upgraded one. So more hulls and parts to improve that.

- This one is tricky and i hardly believe they will be ever added to the game but i hope one day they will because they are part of naval combat: Carriers. Yes i know what people will say but carrier is necessary. I know that for carrier there would probably need big changes to the game so that planes can be added, and i hope on long term this could be possible.

- Adding frigates, corvettes. These smaller ships could also be added as patrol, escort ships.

- Adding more destroyer hulls and part, this is connected with more parts and hulls but its necessary.

- Adding more timeline, for example up to 1960s, as well adding hulls and technologies up to that period, i know this is probably not possible but who knows, one day could be.

 

Thats all i can think of for now.

[kineuhansen]

just some nerf to ai ships special cruisers it take mutible salvo from 13inch and 12 inch guns to destroy a cl and please some more buff to guns above 13inch

[Schmitty21]

9 hours ago, Captain Vlad said:

6. Let us manually rename our own existing ships.

Double click the name on the fleet screen to edit.

[Captain Vlad]

5 hours ago, Schmitty21 said:

Double click the name on the fleet screen to edit.

Many thanks.

[halofanjames]

1. (noticing this is a theme) more interactions with minor nations (ie invasions or selecting who you ally) somewhat annoying when starting from the 1890 start date as the USA and never getting Hawaii 

2. tweaking for research, isn't bad from 1930s and onwards however starting earlier you'll have some pretty heavy tech imbalances once you get later on your campaign 

3. The AI, Now this is a two part ask, firstly it's no secret the designs the AI comes up with are bizarre but one thing I notice is no matter the nation they all feel the same between the AI nations. What I would like to see is when choosing historical the AI picks designs are as close as possible to what they were from that era respectively, while this is somewhat resolved by the ability to have them choose shared designs the above issue with research rates tends to negate that feature, admittedly a big ask because of the amount of variables the AI would need the check but as it stands they do lack a lot of national flavour. second part with the AI is that it tends to build as large a navy as possible with no care to its economy it's not uncommon every five turns to see that 3 nations admirals are replaced or the nation disintegrates because they have a fleet of 20 bb's, 15 bc's etc

Lastly is a thanks to you guys at games labs, the game's come a long way from when I first got into it, still has a long way to go but thanks to the campaign and improvements made I've tripled my hours played just in the last few weeks.

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

I feel like I'm somewhat alone on that count, but I'd really like to see naval treaties. They would add something nice to have to think around during campaign

[Schmitty21]

2 hours ago, Käptn_Flitschauge said:

I feel like I'm somewhat alone on that count, but I'd really like to see naval treaties. They would add something nice to have to think around during campaign

Naval treaties would make the game much more fun to play. They add a nice strategic and political depth to Rule the Waves and would be a very good addition to UA:D.

[Afk my Ship is on Fire]

This maybe a small thing but could the British please be given the Tribal Class hull and superstructure? The US, Russia and France have it and it’s really confusing why the British don’t!  Additionally, could the British BB secondary turrets be used for British  destroyers? Fletcher-class like turret really doesn’t look right imo.
 

the other thing aside from other hulls and superstructures is the ability to choose either gun mark or the ability to choose between a turret or a gun with a blast  shield (complexity forgotten the technical term) as some hulls really need that option for the secondaries as the turrets are too large and clash with the superstructure.
 

If you could choose the type of turret or gun shield that would be amazing, for me the designing part of the game is super enjoyable so the more option you have the better!

The other thing would be tightening. Up where funnels and superstructure can or can’t go, it seems at times it’s really arbitrary where some things can or can’t go.

 

I don’t know how feasible  any of this is so please feel free to correct me if I’m being ridiculous

Edited March 2, 2023 by Afk my Ship is on Fire

[ituralde]

Been playing for a while, first time here.

Overall, pass it on to the team, this is an excellent game that fits a nice niche, but there's some room for improvement.

First is a QOL pass.  Clean up the UI a bit, add in more tooltips that explain campaign and in-battle mechanics with onMouseOver on internal content.  Fix tooltips showing up off screen.  Clean up UI scaling for various monitor sizes.  Clean up some of the fleet group behaviors (Huge improvements here already over the past year ESPECIALLY with the torpedo changes, very well done!).  Give us a better task force designer that lets us set up ships in a task force into prebuilt divisions and let us set up their initial divisions and formation going into a battle so we don't need to spend ages re-organizing our forces early in a battle.  Add in an indicator for vision radius in battle.  Things like that.

Next is a performance pass.  The dream is to be able to play a battle on the scale of Jutland smoothly, and that's achievable with modern game engines with proper optimization and memory handling.  The campaign runs way too slowly for how relatively non-complex it is. 

After that, I'd like to see a rework on gun behavior to decouple the process of accuracy and firing into individual parts.  These are done pretty cleverly in an all-in-one behavior now in a fairly clever fashion, but there are some cases where it aggressively breaks down.  If you decouple the aiming process into the steps of target tracking, aiming quality, and gun precision, you'll have a system that is more realistically reactive to battle conditions instead of having flat modifiers that behave terribly while not ruining some of the fun customization options that let players have unique playstyles, even if they are non-historical.  It's pretty stupid how you can be 1km from a 38 knot hostile battlecruiser while traveling yourself at 34 knots in a parallel direction yet be unable to hit the target due to a 'target fast speed' penalty, even through the relative speed is only a handful of knots.

Targeting is the process of identifying where the target is and where it will be when shells arrive there - it's how well a ship decides where it needs to aim.  This is where all the rangefinding, fire control, and radar equipment fit in, as well as perhaps communication with scouts, etc.  You could also have different targeting modes, so direct aim takes over for targeting estimations below a certain range against ships of a certain target signature. 

Aim quality is how well the ship and crew at being able to aim at that targeted location - impacted by gun training equipment, crew, and ship stability.

Then gun precision is the raw CEP of the gun based on its characteristics, i.e. the inherent lack of precision when shooting at something even if you aimed at it perfectly. 

That gives you more nuance when picking technologies and on how you maneuver your ship in battle to handle your own behavior relative to enemy ships when picking how you fight. 

Finally, after all this, I'd love to see a campaign play pass.  Overall, it's not in an awful spot now, but it would be nice if there was more emphasized in winning battles and naval dominance and a bit less on parking in a bubble to steal clay from the AI. 

 

 

[halofanjames]

Something I forgot in my first posting but something I would gladly give an organ for is workshop support and I know this'll be a huge ask but a lot more freedom for the modding community such as the ability to upload models and components to a workshop I feel it would go a ways to the longevity of the game

[ijp8834]

Please fix American Battleship Towers. The Iowa Class didn't have that metal frame behind the main mast until Vietnam. It shouldn't be available on Standard Class Dreadnought refit Hulls in the 1920s.

[Cborg1700]

Hello,

I would like to see an option to continue the campaign past 1950 even though the game would technically end. There are a number of games that have this option.

I would also like to see more options on selecting the start year. For example, If i want to Play as the German Empire I'd have to select 1910. Why not have the option to start in 1914 or 1918.

Consequently I'd like to see an option to select the gov't type (democracy, constitutional monarchy, etc) Example German Empire in 1920, or Chinese Empire in 1920. This game isn't entirely historical and I'm ok with it. I enjoy alternate history and it would be cool to see.

Thank you.

[vonPeretz]

The game has a difference in displacement and speed of ships of the same type, which is true. I would also like to add such accidents as the death or damage of ships from navigational errors, accidents, self-explosions of ammunition, and so on.

[Nagato]

One of things that would be nice to add is possibility to buy ships from other major nations and improve those ships in refit section. Removing original weaponry and adding weapons of your own country.

[German CL mk II guns]

IMHO game can benefits from some in game history. Like major battles, ship history and such things on a details, info panel. Like ship flaws it will add a dimension. 

Also game can benefit from more player control when it comes to naming ships. 

For example when i lay down 2 predred and their name appears as bismark and Tirpitz.i scrapp them and look for more suitable names for that era. I have also try to name sister ships more similarly. I am not that nerd but i don't like to name armored cruisers like graf spee or coronel. 

I understand this is totally fine as the game e is not (and also shouldn't) be historic in this sense but just being able to  rename an existing ship is maybe not that difficult to change and make some people happy. 

Also maybe more importantly. When you sell ships to minors, maybe you can't add a full list of names for minors but enabling player to change the name of ship to be sold can be even nicer. 

That means changing the name of the ships in construction. 

[Käptn_Flitschauge]

3 hours ago, Terminus Est said:

 

Also maybe more importantly. When you sell ships to minors, maybe you can't add a full list of names for minors but enabling player to change the name of ship to be sold can be even nicer. 

That means changing the name of the ships in construction. 

You can already do that. Just double click on the name.

I'd like to see camouflage patterns and decals added to the game. Right now, ships are a little bit drab, when during that time period they tended to have decorative patterns as well as camouflage. Just a small change to spice things up visually.

Second, concerning the trading of warships, allowing majors to buy ships if they haven't the capacity to buil their own, like the Russians and Japanese did, would be a good and historical addition to the game. 

Lastly I heartily support the improvement and overhaul of task force management including the ability to form up our own forces prior to battle

[ijp8834]

If a Naval Treaty system is implemented it HAS to be all or nothing. There is no point in 2 nations making a naval Treaty limiting their Battleships to 45000 tons if another major power can build 90000 ton Super Battleships. Maybe agreed to as a consequence of a World War?

[Falconette]

I think the game has to make some distinctions between class names and ship names. Right now, they are technically the same, which leads us to weird situations when ships have names like "O-Class" or "Capitani Romani" (it's plural and there never was a ship with such name — it means "Roman Captains", the general name of the class, while the ships themselves were named as one or another Roman fleet leader). Also it would be cool if the names were consistent among one class, but I understand that's it's quite hard to implement due to AI building policy and whatnot. 

[Lastreaumont]

Today I decided to shoot in my foot and share a suggestion that will ruin a trick I use.

All started with the ascertainment that the time a ship was built (especially the big ones in late decades), she isn't state of the art  anymore. So the 1st thing she experiments just at the end of her commissionning, this is a refit. 
And here come the good question: if most of the time I refit a ship I just built, do I really need to build her state of the art, with a higher risk of flaws? 
So, I changed my way to design ships:
1) I do a state of the art design of what I want. 
2) Before saving I change all the design options that introduce flaws probabilities for other ones, with no flaws probabilities. 
3) I build the ship.
4) When build is done, I refit the ship to a new state of the art design. 
With this method I produce SOTA ships with less flaws, and sometimes in less time because options without flaws probabilities are often shorter to build than ones with. 

So, from a gameplay point of view I suggest to add this rule to the refit time/cost:
- when an option added during a refit would add a flaws probabilities if added for a build, the refit should be longer and/or with higher cost.

[Zuikaku]

Stop TFs from being teleported back to port after every battle when ships take minor damage! Or just introduce a button in TF screen so we can influence this like: cautious, stay on the station, ignore minor damage.

Edited March 9, 2023 by Zuikaku

[Suribachi]

On 3/5/2023 at 6:29 AM, Nagato said:

One of things that would be nice to add is possibility to buy ships from other major nations and improve those ships in refit section. Removing original weaponry and adding weapons of your own country.

Slight twist to this as well.  Being able to refit captured ships that you get from reparations after a war.  That way, you do not need to completely rebuild a fleet.

[Nagato]

4 hours ago, Suribachi said:

Slight twist to this as well.  Being able to refit captured ships that you get from reparations after a war.  That way, you do not need to completely rebuild a fleet.

Yeah most of the tiime ships you get for reparations are quite bad, obsolete, so i just scrap them not to waste resources, but if we can refit them, add new tech on them that would give them purpose and of course increase the size of fleet.

[MDHansen]

I think this has been mentioned before.

In the research descriptions there should be a hint to how the tech is implemented; either by refit or added without.

ex.

"Tech" : added to all ships, the following turn, when researched

"Mechanical" : a Refit is needed

There is a lot of research that really don't need a refit, even a 1month non-re-setup refit, to be added, and some don't need a refit per now, as far as I know.

Take Crew Salvage Program X as a cheaply made paint example. Im not sure how this is added now, but it's clearly a research that should be implemented without a refit.

 

MDH