<<<Alpha-6 News>>>

[Aceituna]

All these new features and hulls are amazing but this excited me the most:

5 hours ago, Nick Thomadis said:

upcoming first campaign version

[Shaftoe]

I wish we had coastal battles in the campaign. While I am not a fan of WoWs or War Thunder maps, I think battling in open sea time after time, always, gets a little boring. Since this is a game, some variety would be welcome, even if only visual. 

[Cptbarney]

29 minutes ago, Shaftoe said:

To be honest, I am more concerned about getting newer ships and appropriate components for them.

I want both, but a few older dreads wouldnt hurt here and there. Think we are missing 1930 and 1940 light cruisers and dd hulls.

could also do with more hulls past 1920, but i would like too see more 1910 and before hulls.

I like both so i can be a bit greedy lol.

would love to personally see more supercruiser hulls and design proposal hulls like monarch, lion, henri the 4th, venezia, any dd hulls etc. Was kinda hoping balti or brooklyn hulls would be featured but eh. I can wait for as long needs be.

[DerRichtigeArzt]

We need the really old predreads for legacy fleet in campaign. Also predreadnought era hulls have very little customisation to them so there needs to be more of them. Ussualy you can place a turret in front and back and some casement. I think at least 1 hull per 2 years of progress for each nation and each type of ship. It would be a shame if replayability was hampered by essentially the same designs untill 1906 every time we start a game. 

[Cptbarney]

6 minutes ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

We need the really old predreads for legacy fleet in campaign. Also predreadnought era hulls have very little customisation to them so there needs to be more of them. Ussualy you can place a turret in front and back and some casement. I think at least 1 hull per 2 years of progress for each nation and each type of ship. It would be a shame if replayability was hampered by essentially the same designs untill 1906 every time we start a game. 

Good time range for pre dreads would be between 1876-1895, since we have the monitors in game i see no reason to not have hms thunderer or hms dreadnought (pre dread) or even some of the french dreads.

Maybe they will appear in alpha 7 and once the campaign drops they can add moar ships to the most needed time period.

[liaxelot]

you want more modern boat ok, but to be realist and correct

the game need also aircraft carrier and submarine ! if you we are after WW1 or it is not correct !

so it is, why me , i prefer old boat  end of 18century or before WW1, with this period  we can be realist and logique whithout aircraft and submarine !

my opinion...

[Hangar18]

3 hours ago, Cptbarney said:

*nudges* try'in to make you look gud 'w'

Well at least we got new DD's which is the last class (i think) to get new hulls before any other major updates.

I mean they're currently making WGs art dept. look like fools. For a dev team that probably consists of 4 tankmen and a dog, that is impressive. That's not even exaggerating, shell hits, bounces, ship detail, mag explosions, torpedo explosions, and water detail, all look better than what WG has. The only places i can think of where WG has done a better job visually is in camo patterns, and the flood/damaged engine effects. I'm not sure if WGs rendition of flood and engine damage are even realistic though, so that could be pointless. @Steeltrap not sure if you would know anything about that.

3 hours ago, Latur Husky said:

You'd be surprised but even historically ships in formations often collided with each other... Game seems to perfectly reflect that.

7 minutes ago, liaxelot said:

you want more modern boat ok, but to be realist and correct

the game need also aircraft carrier and submarine ! if you we are after WW1 or it is not correct !

so it is, why me , i prefer old boat  end of 18century or before WW1, with this period  we can be realist and logique whithout aircraft and submarine !

my opinion...

I think many people from WOWS are scarred mentally from that version of CVs. If it was implemented like RTW (but with a UI that isnt belligerent to the user) It would probably be fine. RTW is generally extremely unfriendly to the user, and i dont think many here have played it.

Edited May 7, 2020 by Hangar18

[liaxelot]

if you want realistic game of war at sea after WW1 you can t forget submarine and aircraft !

rather that it is not realist ! so better to concentrate on DREADNOUGHT (period monitor to end of ww1)

and it is the name of the game !

and with modern hull where are the 4 gun turret ...

 

 

[Danvanthevacuumman]

Nice, you fixed the annoying sound mixing.

[nimbalo500]

With the inclusion of the Akizuki type destroyer can we get the Japanese 100mm guns?

[DarkMaid]

Looks tasty!

Thank You!

[TAKTCOM]

Thank you, Nick. It's nice to see that your team fine and not standing still. And my personal gratitude for Yubari. For some reason, I like this pipsqueak.

to DerRichtigeArzt,  Cptbarney:

- in the game by the moment is really not enough CA and especially, protected cruisers. While we have a half a dozen original battleships hulls. But hulls of early cruisers is usually copypaste of BB hulls. As a result, we have...what? a single Warrior as an original pre-dread cruiser? Well we also have the so-called “light cruiser” hull, which gives us a final figure of two original cruisers hulls.

This is not about what hull each of us would like, this is about what hull in game lacks. 

 

[Tycondero]

Great to hear. I'm really looking forward to this and the version which will for the first time introduce us to the campaign.

However, with all these new destroyers I think it is also important that torpedo mechanics get a rework in the future. We need dud torpedoes to be a thing when they impact at a steep angle.

[DerRichtigeArzt]

1 hour ago, Tycondero said:

Great to hear. I'm really looking forward to this and the version which will for the first time introduce us to the campaign.

However, with all these new destroyers I think it is also important that torpedo mechanics get a rework in the future. We need dud torpedoes to be a thing when they impact at a steep angle.

Ye currently a torp is a death sentence even tho USA torps should not explode more often than they do. 

[Nick Thomadis]

10 hours ago, nimbalo500 said:

With the inclusion of the Akizuki type destroyer can we get the Japanese 100mm guns?

There are new guns of course, special for the Japanese Destroyers, and some for USA, British destroyers. I will add to notices.

[Bluishdoor76]

not the biggest fan of DDs, but still nice to see some more options, more variation for my huge as hello kitty BBs to sink :3

hu, cute filter I see

Edited May 8, 2020 by Bluishdoor76

[VarangianGarde]

I'm excited to see the new updates play out. Thanks for all your work, @Nick Thomadis!

 

The one thing I hope we'll see soon now is greater freedom on barbette placement.

[Aceituna]

19 hours ago, Shaftoe said:

I wish we had coastal battles in the campaign.

I believe that I've seen Nick's post where he stated that there will be battles containing shores but I can't remember where it was.

[cipher315]

Quote

• Weight limitations of all ship types rebalanced, so that ship speeds are more realistic according to technology era. You may still make an overly fast ship but it would be very weak in protection and armament. All ship saves are affected due to this change.
• Turbine engine horse power is more pronounced according to type, so that early dreadnoughts and battlecruisers are not so fast compared to more advanced ships.
• Diesel engines rebalanced to reflect better their bonuses. Diesel engines will be more important in campaign, but now can be useful in missions too, offering more reliable and cost-effective power plants.

Thank you This is one of my last 2 major "This is bullshit" issues with this game.

 

[monbvol]

A lot of excellent stuff there.

It'll be rather difficult for me to wait for Monday now.

[Spitfire109]

i assume we still cannot modify or save designs for custom battles? Or modify the enemy ships designs?

[Joryl]

23 hours ago, DerRichtigeArzt said:

Ye currently a torp is a death sentence even tho USA torps should not explode more often than they do. 

Very true especially early in the war Japan's Oxygen torpedoes were to be feared The U.S torpedos ehhh should i bother swerving away.   

[Joryl]

On 5/7/2020 at 2:24 PM, liaxelot said:

if you want realistic game of war at sea after WW1 you can t forget submarine and aircraft !

rather that it is not realist ! so better to concentrate on DREADNOUGHT (period monitor to end of ww1)

and it is the name of the game !

and with modern hull where are the 4 gun turret ...

 

 

Submarine yes...  Aircraft not really as until Pearl Harbor most Navies seriously underestimated them the U.S even believed that Pearl Harbor was to shallow for torpedos by aircraft. So yeah.

[Joryl]

On 5/7/2020 at 2:05 PM, Hangar18 said:

I mean they're currently making WGs art dept. look like fools. For a dev team that probably consists of 4 tankmen and a dog, that is impressive. That's not even exaggerating, shell hits, bounces, ship detail, mag explosions, torpedo explosions, and water detail, all look better than what WG has. The only places i can think of where WG has done a better job visually is in camo patterns, and the flood/damaged engine effects. I'm not sure if WGs rendition of flood and engine damage are even realistic though, so that could be pointless. @Steeltrap not sure if you would know anything about that.

I think many people from WOWS are scarred mentally from that version of CVs. If it was implemented like RTW (but with a UI that isnt belligerent to the user) It would probably be fine. RTW is generally extremely unfriendly to the user, and i dont think many here have played it.

Who is WG's art department? like what game?

[Cptbarney]

2 hours ago, Joryl said:

Who is WG's art department? like what game?

Think he meant the wow's art team, but they have been carrying the game along with the coders for god knows how long now.