Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

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

Nick Thomadis

Recommended Posts

All the announced features are most welcome. Thank you for providing the roadmap, others in this thread have already made some great points about tweaks and features to add. 
My request is far more about what happens after the team moves onto new projects. Whilst I totally understand that that needs to happen at some point, we players are a stubborn lot and will hopefully be playing UAD for many years to come. The community will probably want to continue to improve the game past the end of official development. To that end please consider adding some mod friendly support features (such as the ability to easily swap the resources.asset file and documentation about how the game works). I’m no expert in that department, but @Sapphire and @AdmiralSnackbar have already done some great work and could probably tell you what they would need.

  • Like 19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the news! Can you comment on whether there is no possibility of additional content from you in the future to UAD? Maybe it will be sets of hulls and modules, maybe the addition of aviation (well, at least in the image and likeness of submarines, or maybe with their full participation in battle?), maybe an addition dedicated to deepening the economy and politics of the game? Or a set of historical ships, camouflage, whatever? Do you think this is possible, or will UAD not receive official development later? Should we start waiting for UAD 2 ? 🙂

In addition to everything that has already been written, I would like to possibly have more detailed logs and a log filter on the global map. So that at the beginning of a new turn I could read who fought with whom, who studied what technologies and who build what ships. That would be interesting! Now there is information about this in the log, but it is too fragmentary.

Also, again, for battles on YouTube with friends and subscribers, is it possible to make battle between ships of the same nation in custom battles? Now it can be done manually by editing the country in the ship file, which is done through the share design menu, but I'm sure it's not difficult to add it to the game.

And I will support what has already been written: deployment before the battle, the ability to use several projects of the same class in custom battles (at least to give a choice of the number of projects made in advance through shared design), selective modernization of ships (let me leave the old guns on the ship! I don't want to change them!), improving AI, so that the AI does not lag behind in technology (just slightly reduced the place of research for him! Maybe by tying it to the difficulty of the game. Now the AI is rapidly lagging behind in technology, especially not rich countries), I would also like the AI to use its shipyards more competently. After a couple of major battles, he has a lot of ships under repair and he becomes simply incapacitated. It is possible, if there is time left, to slightly modify (diversify) the animation of ships when they die.

Submarines. I understand that it is expensive and there are probably no chances, but why not make them at least in the constructor? This would add interest to their creation and use! Let there be a few modules, but just to look at them, it would already be great!

Thank you for such a wonderful game! Special thanks for its translation into other languages! You are the best! 👍


Edited by Grizli60rus
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. Some sort of Naval Prestige mechanic to have more influence over government decisions at the cost of NP (More details here)
  2. Being able to build refitted ships. Minor nations can already request them, so why can't we? It would be a minor change yet great quality of life improvement
  3. Ship count limits for TFs instead of or together with crew number limits
  4. AI improvements as described in the comment above plus AI ship design improvements
  5. Being able to launch naval invasions against minor nations and ungoverned territory
  6. Change '100k tons' requirement for naval invasions to a flexible one, tied for example to average shipyard size. Currently in 1890s launching an invasion often takes my whole fleet, while in 1940s it's just 1 BB and a few DDs. 
  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally i leave most technical stuff to others but to me:

1: a simple map change to make Messina strait passable, at the moment ships circle sicily.
2: possibly a way to change textures on the ships, to break the monotony and add interesting liveries (early 1900 paint jobs, dazzle schemes, camouflages...)
3: A naval treaty system.
4: a way to press war against minors and uncontrolled territories, or otherwise to give back all unoccupied territories of a collapsed nation back if they have not been conquered by anyone else in the meanwhile.

Edited by Italianplayer
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there are 2 things I would like to see:

1) a form of semi-permanent task forces / squadrons where you can have ships assigned to a squadron and the squadron assigned a home port

2) Some way to intervene against minor countries or at least to use naval prestige to lobby the government to do it. Also, it has happened to me that invading Egypt, which had a sizeable Navy, no battle was generated.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part II.

"....where you can mention your biggest concerns, issues that prevent you from fully enjoying  the game. "

Going to mention only one little thing before. A simple QoL feature. Control+Alt+Shift+Z to enable and disable the UI? A simple option in the settings to allow the players to edit the shortcuts.


Now to the main list.

1) Pre battle deployment. Probably the biggest request from the community. If I could only choose one feature, this would be it. Would solve, indirectly, all my issues with the formations, by only using battle lines.


2) Issues with formations.


Screen formation issues.

  • The screen leading ship is never a ship in the front. In this example is the "DD Hayashimo". Because of this, will always be hell when you gave them the order to create a battle line.
  • The distance is always too small. In this example, only 1.2 km from the main division. This does not give enough room for the ships to move freely without bumping with others, and in later years, with 20 km + range torpedoes in game, this formation becomes useless to detect in time any torpedo attack by the enemy.
  • I would prefer to see a semicircle with the screen division leading ship always at 0.0 degrees ahead of the main division. This would help a lot if I need to change them to battle line and will also be able to scout ahead of the main division. An important area missing from the screen division. The other areas can be covered by the scout formation, which I will explain in details below.


Scout formation issues.

  • In the scout formation, the formation scouting will stay in a parallel line with the main division. The issue with this formation is that I can't choose the side. So to make it simple in the UI, a simple new option. "scout port side" or "scout starboard side".
  • If is a DD or TB division scouting to be place maybe 4 km away of the main division. If is anything else, then 2 km away is a good distance.


In conclusion, to make it easier to understand:

  • The big black line is the main division.
  • The semi red circle, is the screen division, and the star is where the screen division leader should be. Probably 4 km away is a good default distance for most eras.
  • The green lines are the TB and DD scouting for the main formation at 4 km away. Port or starboard side, which the player can choose in the UI.
  • The blue lines are the CLs, CAs, BCs or other BBs scouting for the main formation at 2 km away. Port or starboard side, which the player can choose in the UI.
  • This should give enough room to help in detecting targets and incoming torpedoes quicker for the main division, to give enough room for the ships to move to the position or avoiding torpedoes without bumping with other ships and would solve the issue when we change the screen division to a battle line. Since the screen division leader is exactly at 0.0 ahead of the main division with the other ships screening also in the front, this should solve most issues when changing formation. A simple and intuitive method that allows the player to choose exactly where he/she wants to focus his forces to protect and scout for the main division, without worrying with ships bumping with other ships.


3) Campaign battle issues.

If the player gets attacked in the campaign by the AI in these two situations ("defend convoy" and "ambush") the AI should not retreat from battle. At least not in the beginning. These are not normal encounters. These are engagements where the AI in an advantage position decided to attack me in the campaign map. It is frustrating for the player to see them running away from the beginning in these situations.


4) Simulation, hardcore option.

  • A simple toggle to disable all the unrealistic information that the player have access in the battlefield. To make battles harder and more interesting for the players that enjoy playing a more realistic simulation.
  • I don't want to know how much ammo they have.
  • I don't want to know when they launched the torpedoes if they are not spotted by my ships.
  • I don't want to know how accurate are their guns and if they can pen me or not.
  • I don't want a detailed damage report from the enemy ships.
  • I don't want to see the enemy ship's guns ranges in the sea, if the target is not classified.
  • I should not be allowed to move my camera freely away from my ships or teleport my camera to the enemy ships. Maybe a small event window could be added when an enemy gets a flash fire, or ammo detonation to see the action.


5) Shared designs questions.

I still didn't use this option because I am concerned in the future, an update could ruin my designs. So I am still waiting for the game development to end. This being said, I need to know if this is possible or not. If not, can you consider implementing in game.

  • Can I use my shared designs in the campaign with my nation? This would make starting a new campaign for the player much quicker.
  • Are the shared designs available for the player in custom battles?


6) A simple AI battle improvement.

To make AI detach heavily damaged ships from divisions and retreat them from the battlefield (50% hull HP - 25% flooding). If the AI ship retreating from battle manages to stay half an hour without being detected by the player should be allowed to simply vanish and leave the battlefield. I use this method all the time to save my ships, so it is a little sad to see the AI not having a similar strategy.


7) Casemate guns in cruisers improvements.

The option for light cruisers to have guns bigger as 5" inch in the casemates.

The option for armored cruisers to have guns bigger 6" inch in the casemates.

This would not only make them much more interest in the battlefield is also historical accurate.


8 ) Draught slider and casemates guns.

There are still many hulls with the draught slider issue or casemates positions where it should be a secondary gun. I am little concerned, the list to be huge and that it would never be fully fixed. And if is fixed, that could break design saves from the players. Still, I need to mention this.


With these fixes and others suggested by the players, I strongly believe that it is possible to get a strong foundation for a great game. After, I hope to see ship / superstructure components DLCs packs to fill the gaps. I know the fans of the game will happily support game labs and will enjoy having more options in the designing process.


I wish you all good work and stay safe.✌️

Edited by o Barão
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ability to pre-select ships which are drawn to auto generated battles from ports based on their range and speed. I always tend to end up in battles with the mix of ships I don't want (old, slow cruisers or unescorted BB). 

TFs to actually generate more missions than they do now. I can have TF sitting in the midst of enemy traffic and nothing happens which is frustrating.

More info on Invade, Protect and sea control roles for TFs.

Weather (storm, snow, rain, wind) and night battles.

Captains and admirals woul'd give AI some personality. Cautious leaders will tend to withdraw or disengage early ,while agressive admirals will close in and fight to the end.

Convoy lanes which can be raided and protected. Convoy lanes connect every mayor country with their overseas colonies, allies and minor allies. 

Differentiation between night and day crew experience. Night battles were trained separately.

Convoy missions not ending when escorts are sunk.

Ship limit to the TFs and not crew limit. E.g. let TB and DD be worth 1 point, Cl 2 pounts, CA 4 points and BB 8 points. And let TF limit be 30 points 

Edited by Zuikaku
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would love to see more interaction with the army and land invasion mechanic.  Currently the government decides to invade without talking to the Navy at all so there is no chance to get a fleet together to support it.  Which brings me to my next point: make Naval Invasion support Ground Invasions.  Obviously this can't always happen such as in the case of landlocked territories but when Germany invades Dahomey from Togoland for the billionth time instead of just biting my nails and hoping for the best or launching a frantic Naval Invasion of Togoland in the hopes of stopping the Ground Invasion before it finishes, I should be able to send the fleet to sit off Dahomey and shell the invading Germans.  Likewise when my government decides to send in the troops to take Togoland away from the Germans I should be able to send the fleet in in support.  

As with most things I'd also love to see more UI feedback for the invasion mechanic.  In my French playthrough I'm doing right now Germany is invading China with 2 Million troops.  Where on earth did they come from?  Clearly Germany doesn't have but a small port territory nearby to bring troops through unless they marched them across Russia to get there so either they developed teleportation technology or they brought them through the nearby German held port of Kiatschou.  And if that is the case why wasn't there an option for the Navy to stop them?

Another point on Naval Invasions: Currently the tooltip tells you that you need 100k tonnage nearby and I believe that's it.  But when the actual invasion starts that isn't always the case.  It would be nice to know what tonnage is actually going to be required to keep the invasion going.  As a for instance in the French playthrough I've referenced already I attempted a Naval Invasion at one of the core Chinese territories that Germany had taken to try to stop them invading another one.  I got my 100k of ships together, started the invasion... and it said I needed about five times that much to actually move forward.  As a result the invasion failed, my VPs took a massive hit, and I am now in danger of losing the war.  As always more UI Feedback would be appreciated.  

I'm sure it's been said elsewhere but the Diplomacy options, while eons better than what we used to have, are still really lacking in a number of ways.  The biggest one for me is UI and Feedback.  Ok so I tried to improve relations with China and it failed: Why?  And why didn't I know what the consequences might be if it did fail?  Or the chances it would fail before trying it?  A decision like that wasn't something some Admiral staked his reputation on without some research so there should be UI feedback on that beforehand, perhaps on a tooltip when mousing over the option. 

Alliances also need some significant work imo.  I'm playing a game right now as France allied to China and Japan.  Germany is marching across China as I'd mentioned before but my troops are not there to help?  Japan's are, presumably because they are nearby already, but surely I should have been given a mission to ferry troops in to help?  Perhaps when an Alliance is formed it is given a nominal leader to negotiate on the alliance's behalf for Peace?  Because currently my Alliance is getting it's butt kicked and if I ask for peace with Germany I will simply be at peace with Germany, not my Alliance.

Lastly (for now) I would absolutely love to see this game opened up for modders.  I know modders already are hard at work on it anyway but generally, and I have a limited understanding of modding myself, I understand that Steam Workshop and the modding community work better if the devs are giving them access so I really really really hope that happens when this thing is done.  I can't count on both hands the number of games I've played that wouldn't have had a quarter of the lifespan without the modding community.  Please don't forget them.

I have so many more ideas for this game I will share but I don't want to overload this post so I will stop there for now.  Your game is fantastic.  The fact you lot have done so much despite all the challenges thrown your way is just... mindboggling.  I am so very excited to see this game as a finished product (and a little bit scared).  Thanks for letting us have so much input.

Edited by Bored6288
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why must the game end after 60 years of gameplay, really really annoying. Cant see any reason for it?  I know the history stuff wont compute, but i should be the players who choose how to play. Its not satisfying when it stops half way in myworld conquering.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/40596-cycle-between-fleetsports-that-are-on-top-of-each-other/  -- this one pretty much explains itself.  Being able to select the task force that is underneath another to be able to send them in different directions on the same turn is necessary, whether to send to different ports after a war, for resupply or just to split the task force to do 2 different missions.

2.  https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/40746-marineamphibious-force/  -- Marine/Amphibious Force.  With the introduction of Land Attacks in 1.1, many players feel as if they are along for the ride in their campaigns.  Good for a sim, not good for a casual experience.  I propose a small marine force that we can use during naval invasions that gives a buff to the chances of success.  Similar to buffing port strikes through Naval bombardment.  Hats off to @HistoricalAccuracyMan on this one, his post is far more in depth than could ever hope to write out myself.  NOTE:  I do not have much confidence for this being added, but maybe it can be thought of in a future project.

3. https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/40752-campaign-camera-focusing-on-home-province/ -- The campaign map point of view, or camera, should focus in on the player's nation on the world map whenever loading in cold from the main menu, after a battle or from the ship designer.  I play as Japan a lot and having to scroll every time from the Atlantic Ocean over to Japan so I can manage my task forces in local waters is very tedious.  Having the game do this automatically or giving the player a hot key on the keyboard to do this would be amazing.  Something like "Press 'H' to view Home Province".

4. Wrap Around World Map -- Having campaigns where the Pacific Ocean is your primary theatre of war (Japan, China, USA) is a pain when you need to scroll from one side of the map to the other all the time.  Having the map be able to be continuous so the Pacific Ocean can be viewed all at once is necessary to me.  It is simply not possible to have a complete picture of what is happening there when the region is on opposite sides of a 2D map that does not wrap around.  @admiralsnackbar did a much better job of explaining this in his post earlier in this thread.

5.  Ballast -- In ship building, some designs that are historical are not the best idea for gameplay reasons as they are inherently unbalanced, usually to Fore or Aft.  Being able to add ballast tech, kind of like Barbette or Torp Protection, that can eliminate X% of weight offset possibly at the cost of engine efficiency or something else would be a plus.   NOTE:  I do not have much confidence for this being added, but maybe it can be thought of in a future project.

6. Being able to see what the Government is thinking -- Many a player's frustrations come from the fact that the government is a black box, we have zero idea if they want to continue the war or not.  In the player's eyes, they do not know if their actions or choices matter.  As an example, if the player can see on the Politics tab, or else where, that the government is a parliament made up of 123 government members and which way they are leaning, it can help the player know if a war might be about to end or not.  Additionally, seeing what actions swing the government to either pro-war or anti-war stances are a must.  Captured a province with natural resources?  Might swing pro-war.  Lost a fleet or failed to defend a province?  Might swing anti-war.  To explain the player being able to see this information, it would be like us going to the parliament, using my previous example, and making our case for fighting to the end or pushing for peace (the popup we already have) and seeing how the government members react.  The only difference here is that we can see the outcome of the choice even if we do not have full control over it.

7.  Setting Naming Themes for ship classes --  Personally, I would like see a hull number either somewhere on the ship, in the ships name, or both (toggle in the settings perhaps).  Something like (BB-63) USS New Jersey would be good.  Just a preference thing as I am better with numbers than names.  Also, be able to have the game recognize themes or patterns to a ship class name or give us a preset to chose from.  For example, if I design a destroyer that is a minelaying vessel not meant to see combat, I would want the naming scheme ML-1, ML-2 etc.  The reasoning behind this would be to assist players in recognizing different ship classes outside of the fleet tab like when moving ships across the map.  No use in sending your older CAs to counter a fleet of newer ships right?

8. https://forum.game-labs.net/topic/40689-research-tab-ui-suggestion/  -- The tech tree UI needs a bit of cleaning up.  It gets pretty tedious having to scroll to the bottom to see what is being worked on, especially for Cruiser Hulls, Shells and Explosives.  Also being able to see the years of already completed tech will help you see if you are behind or ahead in that category.  Hats off to @MDHansen for his amazing MS Paint skills btw!

Not necessarily new features, just improvements of what is already there.

1.  Creating minefields in distant waters -- Since mines were introduced, players do not actually have visual feedback if their minelayers are doing anything when away from port.  Being able to tell a minelayer to specifically create a minefield at the mouth of a canal or shipping lane would allow them to deny an enemy passage to an area or risk losses.  Use wisely though, it would be a shame to sink a neutral ship and bring another country into a war that you may already be losing.

2. See a nations transport capacity -- Can be explained by having spies giving you information.  On the politics tab, we can see a guess of how many transports a nation has, much like our own 0-200% under the Finances tab.  However, this would only provide a range instead of an exact number, something like 130-160%.  Just so we know if us hunting transports is actually doing anything.

3. Setting behavior for Submarines -- Since it seems that subs are here to stay, I would like to see us be able to tell the subs which targets to prioritize, Enemy Task Forces or Enemy Transports.  After all, I do not want my older, non-stealthy subs to try and sink warships that have ASW abilities.  Instead, I want those to hunt transports so they can still contribute to the war effort without becoming fish food.

4. Game needs to be able to run in the background -- Pretty self explanatory.  The game needs a Borderless Window mode, allowing the player to click off the game and the game continues to process turns, battles etc while the player is interacting with another program, like the forums!

5. Provinces in some UI elements need more information -- Especially in war concessions screen or choosing a port for a new ship to be built, provinces need to list the body of water they are closest to or are a part of.  This will have geographically challenged players know where the province is on the map without having to google it.  For example, if I am playing as Germany at war with China.  When choosing the provinces, instead of "Formosa -- $13,645,754" I should instead see "Formosa -- East Asia -- $13,645,754".

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-My suggestion is simple, the 6 months period is short and maybe we wont get as many assets as we can, how about adding some more modding support to the game? So that modders can add more and more assets to the game, even crazy things like space battleship Yamato is possible, that will keep the game fresh and going strong years after. Right now, as far as I know there are only gameplay modifications available.

-Other thing that I want to fix is the custom battle system, when I set the shared designs setting to "Always" I expected the AI to used my shared designs, not the ones they automatically created. I wanted to made my Iowa class battleship battle against the Littorio class battleship I created but the AI used this "Dano" class battleship instead , apparently, my historical designs were too weak, not "power creep" enough. My Iowa class battleship had to go against this Italian "Dano" class battleship equipped with 490mm guns and 480mm of armor, my iowa ship's historical stats were not enough to put up a fight. The battle settings should be flexible enough for different needs of player, sometimes we want to play with new designs, sometimes we just want some historical reenactments or some "what if" battles, the custom battle system should've been able to handle that. 

-UI needs further tweaks too, right now the UI is huge and felt incompleted, my eyes weren't so bad that I needed the UI to be so huge.

-Warship direct control mode in 3rd person view, may be with binocular view mode for targeting as well, this is the one that I wanted most. I can imagine spending hours a day playing this. 

Edited by manowar68
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SO......... Performance is a big big issue with this game, since the update and the limitations on building capacity it pays now to mothball older ships but the campaign lags to hell if i own anything over 200 or so ships and its killing the fun. so i would want to see this aspect improved. i might not have the best PC but it has far better specs than the recommended for this game and so this is a game issue not a me issue i think.

now in terms of something i would like to see that is not on your list.

we can build ships for other smaller nations but i would like to see a market place for used ships, this used to happen in real life all the time and so i would like to be able to buy other peoples ships and sell my own that i no longer need. there are good reasons to do this as well as it would allow reemerging major nations to rebuild their strength quicker, it would give the player more financial flexibility, it could also mean that playing as a minor nation would be viable tho of course without research or shipyard capacity. all said i think this would be a very good idea.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only nations I've played lately are Spain and Japan so here we go:

Spain (Mostly aesthetics):

  • Spanish BBs and BCs need unturreted versions of single secondary guns. Early BBs also have the same proble and wich superstructures with enclosed gun slots it just looks terrible The models are there because CAs have them. Maybe a swich while mounting a gun to make it unturreted for that purpose would be nice.image.thumb.jpeg.4012f8731c4c32334976eb5c14154de9.jpeg
  • Last time Mark IV 152mm (6") and 203mm (8") models were upsized versions of the american 127mm (5"). This may have been adressed when I was playing Japan because I think I saw it on a patch but i'm not sure sorry.

Japan (big recreation problems and secondaries caliber placement):

  • Yesterday I was trying to recreate the B-65 Large Cruiser design and noticed that the superstructures couldn't mount 102mm (4") guns while they should also the draft is too high (around 5m) and should go down to more than 8m.
  • 76mm (3") guns  for CL should use the destroyer mount models and not the round AA mount. Look about agano class cruisers for more information.
  • Inconsistences with secondaries placement and caliber on multiple BBs and BCs superstructures that should be able to mount a pair of 127mm(5") guns.
  • The Scout Light Cruiser hull funnels and superstructures needs a full rework. This one should be the gate to recreate the Agano Class and Oyodo cruisers but everything is wrong. For the Aganos we lack a superstructure that allows centerline dual torpedo launchers (Aganos had 2 of these). There is no boiler/engine/funnel/fuel combination that allows to efficiently run a 35knots cruiser with a single funnel ewen downsizing the ship to the minimun wide and draft. Also both hulls need raised prows like every late era japanese cruiser design.
  • Experimental Cruiser Hull (AKA Yubari hull) needs a full main tower rework and rebalance. Those thing have the construction and running cost of a small battleship but the communication range bonus is nonexistent making them a terrible flagships for small flotillas and everything that isnt lone wolf tactics. Also same funnel and superstructure problem with no centerline torpedos from the previous one. Maybe real life Yubari was looked upon as a weak cruiser but it was a proof of concepts that later influenced all japanese designs.
  • Late era heavy cruisers need a full rework. Instead of hulls with raised deck for enclosed torpedo mounts, especialized superstructures as wide as the hull would be a better option to recreate Myoko, Atago, Mogami, and ibuki classes with a single unified hull. These superstructure would have the dedicated torpedo and 127mm secondaries mounts. Also the Heavy Scout Cruiser needs Tone Class superstructure.

Proposed Hulls / elements / mechanics:

  • Colorado Class and Nagato Class dedicated hulls and superstructures. Also Nelson superstructures. With this we would have the full Big Seven set and those were the most powerfull interwar dreathnoughts.
  • A new weapon. 1" guns or autocanons. they sould be able to be upscaled up to 28mm and maybe have a magazine stat with automatic fire. This is because many ships had a vast arrays of AA/dual purpose weapons ranging from 3" to .50" and trying to cover 2" and lower with only 2" inch mounts is a nightmare. I dont care if they are peashooters with ocasional real use at point blank range.
  • Some ability to swap mount designs or ability to create our own on some kind of editor combining weapons and barrels and having forced standarized weapon systems on the fleets.
  • All calibers should be able to be downsized a bit. 


  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll leave most of the technical stuff to others, and, as someone deeply interested in naval history, focus on what hulls I believe should/could be added, and in which order.
This scheme is merely a suggestion btw, and kudos to your lone modeller for all the amazing stuff they have already made.


Priority hulls: These should be added first to close currently existing gaps in certain nations's hull lineup

America: Battleship hulls covering 1910-1930. This could easily be completed in 4 (or less) hulls (one of which is already under development now) in Wyoming/Florida (1910-1915) - New York/Nevada (1915-1920) - New Mexico/Tennessee/Colorado (1920-1925) and South Dakota (1925-1930). Of these, next to New York, having a hull based on the later Standards would be the best follow up. /\ Additional superstructures for CL so that will be possible to recreate the Omaha class (Scout Cruiser hull) and the Helena Class (Currently not possible due to CL superstructure coming with barbette). /\ A DD hull based of the Flush-Deckers like the Wickes and Clemson classes.
Austria-Hungary: Battleship hulls for as far as they are historically possible. The Tegetthoff class BB would be an excellent 1910-1925 hull if added in several sizes. Other options could include the semi-fictional Project series of Battlecruiser studies.
France: After the US and AH in terms of Dreadnought hulls the most lacking. The most interesting hull to add would be the Normandie since the class was actually laid down unlike the Lyon and its extremely unique unlike generic old Bretagne and Courbet. Still, all of these hulls could be contestants for addition to the game. /\ As mentioned before a superstructure representing Algerié to create distinct French cruisers.
General: More unique cruiser and destroyer superstructures. Right now most nations use the same cruiser and DD hulls past 1920 with only Japan, Italy and Germany getting hulls that represent a class of theirs (Myoko-Zara-Deutschland). The current late-game DD hull for most nations is best resembling British design, but does not cover the US, Germany, France etc in a representative manner.

Long Term: These could eventually find their way into the game, either as post-release updates or as DLC

Britain: Queen Elizabeth class BB and Admiral class BC. Two of the arguably most historically significant classes of warship in the modern era. Neither are a priority because it is already possible to get kind of close to a good representation (Especially QE post refit) but these would give Britain a good mid-game combo for hard hitting shellslingers.
Also the Town class CL and the County class CA, to give Britian a consistent flavour of ship design.
Germany: König or Bayern class BB. Right now Germany already has a magnificent SMS hull that is perfectly able to represent most BC and the Kaisers, so this hull would complete the Imperial picture. Also giving Germany superstructures for the earliest Dreadnought hulls to represent Nassau and Helgoland would be nice. Furthermore a CL hull for the Königsberg/Leipzig class to give the Germans a personalized late-game small cruiser hull.
Russia: Hull(s) based off of the Imperatritsa Mariya/Imperator Nikolai BB's and the Izmail/Borodino class BC. These differ from Gangut (already somewhat in game) in their turret and secondaries layout, with slight differences to the superstructure too. Also a hull or superstructures for the Kirov class cruiser for much the same reason as Britain: Flavour. Besides the later game stuff it would be a crime not to include the Pallada class in a game about warships. Wether it would be the class as build or based of off how Aurora is currently preserved is up to the devs. And lastly a personal sweet ship of mine: The second Rurik. Probably after Blücher the best designed armoured cruiser the world has seen. Sleek, strong and fast, I've always had an interest in her.
Japan: A giant Armoured Cruiser hull/early small BC hull representing the Tsukuba and/or the Ibuki classes (Not the WoWs version) These were enormous armoured cruisers that were basically akin to pre-dreadnoughts in terms of firepower (They carried 2x2 12-inch guns) that sacrificed the armour of a B for speed. They are generally considered CA although the Japanese reclassified them BC after the appearance of Invincible. Furthermore getting a hull that can represent the Amagi, Tosa and Kii classes would be interesting.
Italy: A hull to represent the Conte di Cavour and Andrea Doria classes, either as-build, post-refit or both. Furthermore a small cruiser/destroyer leader hull that can represent the Capitani Romani class.
Spain: Leaving out their only noteworthy historical designs would be slightly bad. Think Espana class BB, Canarias class CA and Blas de Lazo/Almirante Cervera class CL's.

Wacky Stuff: Hulls that would be funny to have in-game but have either no historical significance, aren't historical at all, or wouldn't be that effective in combat

Japan: An early game hull representing the Canet gun armed class of cruiser (Matsushima) used during the First Sino-Japanese war. These were single 32cm (12.6 inch) guns mounted on hulls that didn't even reach 5.000 tons loaded. They were considered a failure, although had some successes against the Chinese. Furthermore Design B-65 (which is what Yoshino is modelled after in WoWs) for a late-game Large cruiser.
America: The Lexington class BC as imagined with more funnels then I am willing to count. I do not make this up, this was seriously a concept. Furthermore the Chester class "scout cruiser", because Snoot (They would be very weak ingame, as they can really only support 4 5-inch guns).
Britain: HMS Alexandra, a central battery ironclad that was kept in service untill 1900, well passed her obsolescence. Also the Dido I guess. Maybe hulls based on Minotaur and Goliath as they are in WoWs aswell.
Russia: Donut shaped ironclad go woosh. And the Stalingrad and Khronstadt would be interesting late-game Large Cruisers I guess.
Germany: I would recommend Siegfried here, but its already in game now with the coastal battleship hull. Uhm.... okay, L-20a class as an interbellum battleship hull.
France: A hull based on the concept behind Émile Bertin: A very, very fast cruiser (Think 34kn cruising, 40kn max) that has absolutely no armour at all. Zoom and Boom, my friends.
Spain: Pelayo and Carlos V since some people think these two ships could have single handedly change the result of the Spanish-American war... somehow.
China: Ping Hai/Ning Hai, just about the only class China laid down between losing the Beiyang fleet and purchasing second hand Soviet destroyers for a navy. They are not listed above because they are, even by cruiser standards, pitifully small and rather weak.
Italy: Want 18-inch guns in 1890? Well Italy did! Their Dulio class ironclads decided that instead of waiting for technology to actually make them feasible, they were gonna have their giant boomsticks now, dammit. Besides that joke, seeing Dante Alighieri in game at some point down the funnel would be very pleasing indeed.


Thats all the ships I could think of that I'd think deserve being added into the game at some point (or are jokes) After that rant, I only want to add a little note on turret tier models. Right now alot of nations use models that aren't theirs or are for another era entirely. Italy using Zara style gun turrets from tier 3 is rather strange, but the US using em too is straight up immersion breaking. Therefore I made a small schematic for these two nations to change the gun models per tier:

Tier 2 10+ based of off South Carolina/Wyoming style turrets.
Tier 3 10+ based of off New York/Nevada/Pennsylvania style turrets.
Tier 4 10+ based of off New Mexico/Tennessee/Colorado style turrets.
Tier 5 as they are now (Iowa style).

Tier 3 10+ based of off Dante Alighieri/Conte di Cavour/Andrea Doria style turrets.
Tier 4 10+ based of off Fransceco Carraciolo style turrets.
Tier 5 10+ based of off Littorio style turrets.


Thank you for reading my Ted rant.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the topic of task force improvement, I would like to refer to a post I made a while back proposing a change to how task forces are created and utilized.

Also on the subject of task forces, why not add a new "hunt" or "intercept" option? So that way, when we send a task force of battleships and cruisers to intercept or counter an enemy task force of battleships and cruisers...they don't wind up engaging a convoy while our task force of 3 CLs and 3 DDs are stuck engaging them. I think it would be pretty simple: select your ships/task force, select the new "hunt/intercept" option...and the game then prompts you to select an enemy task force for your ships to prioritize. Of course, there would still be a chance that they run into a different task force...but your ships that were set to "hunt/intercept" would prioritize attacking the enemy task force you selected, and therefore might cut down on the number of "Welp...hope my 4 DDs can win against 2 BBs, 2 BCs, 4 CAs, 3 CLs and 5 DDs" type situations.

Task force cycling would be nice for task forces that are in close proximity/right on top of each other...and that has been brought up by multiple people.

Now, onto the subject of hulls. I am glad to see that USS Texas/USS New York and some desperately needed cruiser hulls are already planned on being added. I just hope we can stretch out this so called "Atlanta variant" to be long enough so we can make a proper Brooklyn class cruiser (correct gun and tower models included, especially considering what a major change in US cruiser design the Brooklyns and St. Louis sub-class represented). But as far as new US hulls/gun models go, I would personally like to see:

  • More early US dreadnoughts like USS Florida and USS Wyoming, maybe even the Nevada Class...at least that way our only options wouldn't be South Carolina, Bigger South Carolina, and that weird Dreadnought III that doesn't match any US Design I know of.
  • One or two sets of proper "Standard Type" battleship towers. I feel like a proper set of Colorado Class towers is almost a "must have" considering the Colorado Class-along with the Nagato, Mutsu, Nelson and Rodney-were the only ones that were allowed to have 16 inch guns before WWII started. The rest of the Standard Type ships were basically just copies of the preceding class with a few differences here and there...so some towers that can emulate a Tennessee/New Mexico class would be nice too.
  • I realize that the US Navy wasn't big on battlecruisers...but I feel like the Lexington class should have it's own dedicated hull and towers seeing as how two were built, but converted into carriers.
  • Maybe a second main tower design for Modern US Battleships that looks like the superstructure of the USS North Carolina. Would give us just a little bit of extra variety (I say the main tower because the rear half of the North Carolina's superstructure is very similar to the Iowa's, so the Iowa rear tower would work fine). Other nations have two sets of superstructures to choose from...why not the US? (I'm specifically referencing the Bismarck and Scharnhorst-esque towers for Germany along with the Pagoda towers and Yamato style towers for Japan).
  • Some changes to the US inter-war (Mk 2 I believe) guns that are in the 10-13 inch range. The US Navy didn't use turrets that look like the Italian Navy's Zara class. The default/generic gun models (like the Mk 1/2/3 16 inchers or like the Mk 2 14 inchers) actually fit the aesthetic of a standard type quite well.
  • The scout cruiser and the towers it has available (or maybe a set of new towers) might be able to replicate the Omaha class of light cruisers if the main towers were allowed to hold 6 inch casemates like the Omaha's did.
  • Maybe something that more closely resembles a Baltimore class heavy cruiser. Depending on how this new "C Class" cruiser hull turns out and whether or not the Heavy Cruiser I hull gets changed to where that gray box of wasted space in the middle is either removed/made to where we can mount stuff on it...I might be able to "grin and bear it" when it comes to having baby Iowas for CAs
  • Some more destroyer designs (hulls AND towers). From early/WWI-era flush decker designs like the Clemson Class, to inter-war/modern designs like the Sims, Fletcher or Gearing classes.
  • Make the 2 inch guns available in a quad-barreled configuration for the US. Or even better...just give the US access to the French 2 inch gun models that look like the Bofors guns so that way we can have that added layer of realism/historical availability with being able to place twin or quad mount Bofors on our 1930s-1940s US (and maybe British) ships. Or if you don't want to do that, why not make a 2 inch gun model that resembles the 28mm (1.1 inch) quad barreled "Chicago Piano" AA guns that the US started out with? Please?
  • Lastly...for the love of all that is Holy...do something about that Heavy Cruiser I hull (available in 1919) that has that huge gray square of wasted space that we can't put anything on. I don't know if that "C Class" cruiser you guys mentioned is for the US Navy, or if it is going to be a generic hull for all nations, but I would hope that it is a proper Northampton/Pensacola/New Orleans class hull and towers. Because that first Modern Heavy Cruiser I hull with that huge gray area that we can't mount funnels or guns on...is just objectively bad, from a fore/aft weight balancing perspective anyways.

As I am not as familiar with the naval designs of other nations, I won't go too deep into those...but there are a few right off the top of my head that I think should be included. Such as a proper Takao class, Agano class, Leander class, Southampton/Town/Edinburgh class.

Edited by HistoricalAccuracyMan
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am very happy to see the new hulls on the list, I’ve been very happy with the game lately and I think the best priority is filling in those variety gaps some nations suffer from. I’m also pleased to see it’s not just battleships on the list, as much as I love the big boys, cruisers and destroyers are fun to build and field too.

Otherwise, maybe certain UI elements could be tweaked or tutorialized- I learned how to invade by watching brothermunroe, and I do wonder if I’m missing behavior around stances or mines or torpedoes because everyone else already knows them.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not remember who proposed it, but it was a genious idea. Add 'Ballast' ship component (with matching research possibly in Hull Construction) that would eliminate X% longitudinal weight offset at the cost of extra weight and maybe floatability with X growing with each level of Ballast tech

Edited by Abuse_Claws
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking it would be nice to have another class of ship now that we have the ability to have more and more ports around the world. A patrol ship/Corvette/Sub Chaser would be useful. Small tonnage and only armed with guns and anti-sub countermeasures. They can either be left in port or sent out to patrol for subs. They'd have an area of affect like mines that would be dangerous for subs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Schmitty21 said:

I was thinking it would be nice to have another class of ship now that we have the ability to have more and more ports around the world. A patrol ship/Corvette/Sub Chaser would be useful. Small tonnage and only armed with guns and anti-sub countermeasures. They can either be left in port or sent out to patrol for subs. They'd have an area of affect like mines that would be dangerous for subs.

You can very easily make small destroyer/minelayers that accomplish that goal. The issue is keeping them separate from the others, as you wouldn't necessarily want them showing up in fleet battles.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are my suggestions. With the limited amount of time on the project a lot of these  are pipe dreams but I think will help add depth others are absolutely necessary.  

1. Wrap around map. 

2. Map Filters that show ownership, troop strength, local manpower, economics, and port capacity. 

3. More borderland regions in Europe that slow the roll of armies for instance Alsace-Lorraine, Rhineland, and so on. Once armies try to invade beyond borderland territory it becomes much much harder to do so. That would mean that core territory would be slower to loose to invasions by the army which we have no control over but not make the map static. Also give Austria Hungry the port of Trieste in the borderland between Austria and Italy.

4. A minor diplomacy menu so we can create events for the minors to respond to and influence them to ally with us, see our relations with them, and ask our government for war.

5. Naval intelligence research and funding slider that allows us to see more things from other nations ranging from their research, ships they are planning, ships built, and so forth. 

 6. Naval support missions, make us send battleships or ships with certain gun sizes to coastal regions to support ground invasions. 

7. National manpower pools, and separate the crew recruiting and training sliders. If we over recruit the army looses that manpower. 

8. Army tech levels, base them off our research. Give the army four scores Artillery (based on our gun research) helps with the attack and defensive operations, Tanks (based on our armor research,) helps with breakthrough,  Logistics (based on engine research, ie trucks and things supporting invasions)more important on the defense than the attack, and finally Equipment (based on hulls which is to represent the industry of our country trying to keep up with larger production numbers) like artillery is equally important. to both phases. Some nations could have modifiers to offset their huge manpower pools like China and Russia having issues with equipment and logistics. Essentially this is a way to explain why Japan with lets say 250k troops can invade Manchuria with 500k troops. 

9. Better tool tips. Explain what modifies what and a short explanation of why. That last part is often missing from the current tool tips. Also all modifiers aren't visible.  

10. Control over windows. Minimize them maximize them and so forth. 

11. More events, especially ones that play off the army navy rivalry. Will we do what is best for our nation or will we let inter service rivalry get in the way. 

12. National themes are events or starting conditions in campaigns to make nations feel different beyond their hulls: Britain should start with its dominions as allies that cannot be broken unless there is a revolution in either country, and should have the option of granting dominion status to colonies forcing them to be allies in the commonwealth. USA getting the Monroe Doctrine allowing it to declare war on non American nations invading minors in the Americas, Philippines from 1900 will start allied with USA but will have its manpower reduced and its economy reduced and the US will have a small manpower reduction. Germany may attempt to gain Austria via Anschluss if the empire breaks (see next)  and a random event once per a campaign has an exponentially higher chance of firing (reaching 100% in March of 1938) that Germany offers an ultimatum to Austria to join. Austria-Hungry gets permanent unrest reductions in territories outside of Austria and Hungry to represent its multicultural empire but if Austria-Hungry has a revolt in Austria or Hungry the Empire splits and whichever side Croatia supports in the breakup will be the new major power. France will consider Algeria as core territory in its peace negotiations and if its invaded, but Algeria can revolt forming its own nation making it possible for the Algerian War of Independence to happen way earlier, and as long as France holds Algeria the province will gain a significant boost to its income but have a manpower penalty. Italy can break alliances easier and chose to support the opponents in a war with a former ally.  Spain can get some events to peacefully reincorporate parts of its empire in the Americas and Asia, but if the offers are rejected (because the player thinks the cost to much money) war might be declared potentially creating a conflict with the USA or Japan. Japan getting the Co-prosperity sphere, It either gets events to invade whole minor nations in Asia or they can ally with Japan minor nations in the Asian Co-prosperity sphere will send ground troops to support Japan. Allies to Japan in Asia should give oil (if they have it) to Japan in exchange for an economic boost from Japan. The Admiral in Russia should get the option to support the Soviets or the Whites during a revolution, meaning that they can keep playing even if the country revolts. that is assuming they choose the right side in the revolt. The first Russian revolt should have a percentage of a centrist government or a communist government forming. Finally, China, China's whole struggle here is to prevent the other major powers from gobbling up more territory and being able to ferment revolt in non Chinese held territory in China if the other nations unrest is high, however, other nations will get events that will force economic concessions from China or more territory. 

13. Minors becoming Major powers, If a Major power is conquered and has no territory it can come back from a Minor power might become a major nation. Brazil, Chile, Argentina, Portugal, Netherlands, and the Ottomans. The one with the lowest unrest and highest economic output is chosen. Additionally events will fire for these nations throughout the game that if the AI chooses correctly they will become a major power, but this will be rare. 

14. Playable minor nations. The nations above should be playable, however in their minor nation role they will be severely restricted by only being able to build cruisers and smaller ships on their own, and have limited diplomatic options (Ie you only go to war with who you are allied to and cannot take territory you did not previously own in peace deals), but be able to buy AI generated or shared designs from majors. Players at the start of this campaign will be allowed to choose hull (per class ie CA and CL) and gun types based on other nations. So you could choose Italian CA Hulls and components with say Chinese guns and German CLs. The events to become a major nation should also fire for the player. This will be considered a HARD mode and not advisable for New players.  

15. Make deck mounted torpedoes impossible to reload during combat. Give us and the AI the ability to select the number of Torps and their spread we fire in a volley.   

16. More save slots, ability to quick save and revert. 

17. Give a reward for the nation that builds a Dreadnought first.

18. In the Research menu give us tool tips that show which components fit on which hulls. 

19. Troop Transports. Sink these and the enemy looses manpower and supplies for their ground invasions in non core territory.

20. Task Force System. Give us the ability to make task forces, within the limits (which should be a combination of sailors, tonnage, and ship types)  within a task force give us the ability to make squadrons. Squadrons start the battle in formation but still remain as part of the squadron if a ship leaves the formation. 

21. Captains, Commodores, and Admirals. Admirals get placed on the flagship of a task force and give small bonuses to the whole task force within communication range of the flagship. Commodores, give small bonuses to the squadron if they are in range of the squadron flagship. Captains give bonuses to crew and help them maintain crew training levels. So you might get a ship to Veteran status over a few battles but if you have a bad captain then they might loose Veteran status. Similarly if you have a good captain in charge of a bunch of cadets the amount of experience needed to advance to veteran status is lowered. 

22. Reduce unrest for minor nations and make them gain it through events so that the Ottomans don't just start breaking up without ever being in a war. 

23. Minors declaring wars upon other minors forcing alliances into wars. 

24. Fix big guns above 16in as several You Tubers and modders have commented on. 

25. Ability to counter flood to right ships

26. Support for Mods

28. The ability for the AI to take our shared designs and alter them based upon technology levels.

29. Ability to reclassify ships if they become outdated and meet certain requirements notably that you have unlocked the tonnage requirement for that ship. So you design a 15k ton BB in 1890 and you don't want to send it to the scrap yard so you reclassify it as a CA once you research 15K CAs. and so forth. 

30. Torpedo boats not going fully obsolete. ie E boats and PT boats from WWII.

31. A Miscellaneous classification that includes Monitors, Corvettes, Cutters, Armed Merchants and the like. So that modders can add them in later.

32. For everyone of your staff to stay safe. 


  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites


The current map is not just a visual problem. This is a gameplay problem, especially for Japan and the US. 

I understand that it will not be easy to recode the map for a wrap around.

If development resources absolutely do not allow this, it would be nice to add the ability (button) to quickly move from one edge of the map to the other so that you do not have to constantly scroll the map. This will greatly improve gameplay in the Pacific. 

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites


1. Penetration still has some bugs.  e.g. Ships will block 12" guns while 5" penetrates.

2. The campaign UI doesn't provide concrete, quantifiable feedback. There are tooltips indicating that various actions have *some* effect, but it is often difficult to determine the magnitude, if any, of the effects. Even a simple "minor/major boost" notification would help. 
2a. How do logistics and army size affect naval invasion? How does the number of ships affect naval invasions? Does the bombardment capacity affect naval invasions?

2b. How do transports affect GDP growth?

2c. How do blockades and sunk transports affect the enemies performance in land battles? Do nearby navies affect land battles?

2d. How willing is the AI to accept a peace deal? What would make them more willing?

2e. How is the player's tech budget multiplying their research progress? How is the "early/late" modifier affecting research progress?

2f. How do the player's actions affect their relation with minors?

2e. What are the prerequisites for getting a mission to invade a minor? How many of these does the player currently meet?

2f. How many ships can be in a zone without imposing a relation penalty? How close is the player to this value?

2g. What proportion of shipbuilding capacity comes from GDP vs. shipyard size?
2h. How does one trigger a port bombardment? (I haven't managed to do this since the global map.)
3. The player's ability to guide the progress of their campaign is too limited.
3a. No way for the player to encourage a naval invasion of a minor.

3b. No way to influence politics and avoid crippling GDP penalties.

3c. No way to request the land army to prioritize a certain region. 

4. The map needs to be made wrap-around. This not just cosmetic, it greatly affects the ability of a player to manage a pacific war.

I think the game has a problem with providing functional systems, but not actually providing a decent UI for the player to interact with them. Good UI is not just cosmetics, the player needs to be able to interact with gameplay features without excessively convoluted or tedious menus. Furthermore, the UI must be reactive and provide good feedback to the player so they can understand how their interactions influence the gameplay features.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Create New...