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

[Aurora]

I'm not sure if something like this has been suggested, but there should be an indicator of sorts for how much impact there will be from recoil on a given hull.
With experience i know that using long 3x3 12.5" long guns on a <25k BC results in relatively heavy recoil debuff while firing, so i can stick to fewer or smaller guns.
However if i were a new player or using less common loadouts i have no clue what works. I feel like there should be something during the building process that gives an approximation of how much recoil will be suffered if all main guns are fired together.

[PalaiologosTheGreat]

I think the final update should be native modding support so that we can add hulls

[Kiknurazz91]

On 6/28/2023 at 4:49 PM, priiskda said:

Allowing the winner to dictate terms can lead to situations of extreme imbalance and potential abuse. For example, the Treaty of Versailles, negotiated after World War I, imposed such harsh conditions on Germany that it ultimately contributed to Adolf Hitler's rise to power and the outbreak of World War II. We must be careful not to repeat history and cause further instability. When I want to take my mind off history, I read reviews, check it out, on new games to relax. As for using "fleet mana" as currency for diplomatic decisions, this is an interesting concept. It would allow more control over peace treaties and potentially shape the outcome according to the winning side's goals. However, there needs to be a balance between game mechanics and historical accuracy. We wouldn't want to reduce the element of unpredictability that is often present in wars and alliances.

Such is war winners dictate terms and their crimes are forgotten. why should this not be any different this is after all a fairly realistic game. Having the ability to dictate the surrender terms would alleviate a lot of the BS you get when you fight a many years war and get little to nothing out of it. Of course there should be some limits such as you cant say you want all of the countries territories, ships, etc.

[CatboiWaifu]

On 7/9/2023 at 3:47 AM, Kiknurazz91 said:

Such is war winners dictate terms and their crimes are forgotten. why should this not be any different this is after all a fairly realistic game. Having the ability to dictate the surrender terms would alleviate a lot of the BS you get when you fight a many years war and get little to nothing out of it. Of course there should be some limits such as you cant say you want all of the countries territories, ships, etc.

yeah, my united med runs go nowhere because Spain utterly collapses before I can fire enough naval invasions to wear down South Spain to take it. The country literally dissolves before I can successfully naval invade the mainland, dealing 10:1 casualties. It's BS that I get peace forced on me with no reparations whatsoever while I have active naval invasions. At least give me the province I was invading when their government, army and economy dissolve.

Also, RNG shouldn't be a thing in peace deals. If I'm winning, I should be able to demand the provinces I want or threaten to continue the war. Right now, Spain can offer peace as a flat Y/N with no indication of what they are willing to offer as reparations. Only after we agree to peace will they tell us what they are willing to give up, and then you're not even guaranteed to get what you have selected. Newsflash Spain, if Britain still has Gibraltar, I don't want your Caribbean holdings or even the Canary Islands. I want your Med coast and Balearics, which I can at least Naval invade relatively easily. I should be able to demand these in a peace deal, and continue the war until they're willing to accept or I can take them by force.

 

I'd love to see the option to limit your convoy routes and even disable colony convoys at the cost of disabled GDP/NavBudget contribution. Right now, there's no upside to having colonies outside your home area, because you have to allocate convoy protection for sea routes you can't see. No lone colonies give enough income to offset the cost of maintaining trade protection which is mentally taxing to maintain in every sea zone required. 

[Panzergraf]

I'm still a bit bothered by the inconsistent application of Unrest from the different types of invasions.
There are three types of invasions in the game, all of them affecting Unrest differently depending on result:

Naval Invasion (VS Major power)
Success: -10 unrest
Fail: +10 unrest
(exact Unrest ammount will differ based on your government type, but I believe +/-10 is the baseline)

This is fine, and as expected. You succeed, and your people are happy. You fail, and your people are unhappy that there are so many dead young men on a beach somewhere.


Conquest Battle (i.e. a Naval Invasion VS Ungoverned or Minor Power)
Success: Nothing?
Fail: +10 unrest

So with conquests you get +10 unrest if you fail, just like with a Naval Invasion. That's OK, fine by me.
But your unrest does not go down if you succeed. This makes Conquests extremely risky in peace time where you have no enemy ships to sink to decrease Unrest.
With, on average, a 50% success rate, half the Conquest battles you engage in will add unrest.


Major Offensive (i.e. Army work VS Major Power, Minor Power, or Ungoverned)
Success: +10 unrest
Fail: Nothing?

I get that the people living there would be unhappy with being invaded, but surely if you pull it off the population at home should be happy? I don't understand why this one punishes success. Especially as you have no control over when and where the army attacks.


Again, when you're fighting a nation with a large navy, none of this is a problem, and you barely notice it at all, as defeating enemy fleets remove a lot of unrest.
But in peace time or more low intensity warfare VS a country with no surface fleet? It becomes a big problem.

I'd like to see this made consistent, preferably -10 for success and +10 for failure for all three.

And ideally add some more events or something that decrease Unrest during peace time?

[MDHansen]

Just quoting myself from the feedback thread

I've been pondering a little about war and the following reperations post-war. 
As it is now, all that happens is you can select territory depending on how much damage you've done (vp). What is lost during the war, will still be lost, unless you have enough VP to get it back. It is a bit flavourless, in my humble opinion.

Suggestion:
-Winning the war will give lost territory back. Win margin needs to be atleast 2-3x
-Territory gained during war is obviously kept
-War reperations with VP should be extremely expensive and really just an option for minor provinces in far away lands
-Territory with canals should act as home region, only capturable by invasion

WIth a no clear winner of the war, territory gained/lost should stay as-is. Sometimes just ending a war is a win.
 

Regards to land wars. There needs to be a way to support your troops even if the invaded territory doesn't have a port, but is connected through owned landmass to a port. Think Chad, when you own Cameroon.

 

Just my nickel and 3 cents. Keep up the good work!

 

MDH

[CatboiWaifu]

I want to see countries surrender before they dissolve, and if they dissolve, it fires a peace deal with all their territories and ships.

 

I want to see the peace deals reworked to be offers and demand based. "Spain offers to end the war, ceding [algorithm determines closest territories] the Balearic islands and Southern Spain. Agree/Refuse/Negotiate". Additionally, you should be able to offer "Cede [player's choices] Southern Spain for peace" and the AI judges based on relative fleet strength, GDP, turns until repairs complete, etc.

 

The losing country shouldn't be able to pull a sneaky one and offer a territory, or agree to territory demands, and then not turn it over without continuing the war.

Edited July 25, 2023 by CatboiWaifu

[demigrifo]

On the technical side, a few points (also reported in-game):

1) The current FXAA implementation seems broken (tested in both AMD and NVIDIA GPUs. No difference observed when flipping FXAA on and off);

2) In the same vein, DLSS and/or FSR 2 would be very welcome additions, easing GPU load while improving visual fidelity and performance overall. These technologies have been widely adopted in Unity games, so it shouldn't be a major hurdle to implement them in UAD;

3) Shadow maps often appear quite blocky and exhibit visible artifacts, even when using max settings. Additionally, ships' hulls and superstructures display dark, diagonal patterns, perhaps a consequence of shadow maps acting up - can provide screenshots if needed (also tested in both AMD and NVIDIA GPUs).

 

As always, many thanks for the continued work in improving the game.

[Nick Thomadis]

UPDATE 30/7/2023

Dear Admirals,
We thank you for your kind participation in providing feedback and ideas on how to improve Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts. With your continuous help (those that appreciate the game and report to us with constructive and sincere feedback) we made successive updates which gradually enhanced the game to the level it plays now. 

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts is a game like no other with a unique 3D ship design system and a really challenging and immersive campaign covering in detail the time period between 1890 - 1940+.  Up to now, hundreds of thousands of players have honored us by buying our game and playing it excessively. As our data shows, we have served you as you have served us. So we will keep supporting the game as much as our time allows, since we have in the works new and exciting game projects.

Ultimate Admiral: Dreadnoughts is scheduled to receive v1.4 major update which will include many new interwar cruisers and other new features. Other updates will surely follow up for any fixes needed and for localization updates. This thread is no longer needed, as it served its purpose for providing your ideas on how to best prioritize our work till this summer.

Thank you again for your support,

The Game-Labs Team