This game is terrible

[Bram]

Having played the game. This game is very very overpriced. Its insanely buggy and bordering on unplayable at the moment. The deployment phase is non existent. Your artillery will be placed in front of your army, so you lose it. Capturing stuff is about impossible or totally bugged. I've captured plenty guns, ships etc but especially for the ships. They just disappear..

The units do not respond or get stuck non stop. You are very very unit capped. This makes it so you cannot play this very strategically. Bordering on unfair. Unit replenishment is bugged, broken and retarded. Getting all those units into a city is very very finicky. Half the time units will not enter a city but do get the button.

Etc etc etc. DO NOT BUY YET, its very very bad..

[voix_de_frappe]

And no. We are not going to stay silent and give them crooks a chance to dupe another clientel of historical gaming.

[stlsf4003]

Originally posted by voix_de_frappe:

And no. We are not going to stay silent and give them crooks a chance to dupe another clientel of historical gaming.

Ten bucks say's that the devs will just nuke any and all dissenting opinions and ban anyone that talks back...as usual.

[Warriordude]

The only game I've played early access I believe was Ultimate Admiral: Age of sail and it was worth it at the time and had a blast, got bored with it after a beat the American and British Campaign.

If people don't want to play the early access which isn't finished just wait till it's released on steam, makes no sense in my mind to complain about an unfinished game to the public, if it's finished and has tons of bugs then complain till your hearts content until then it's early access tell devs what the bugs are and they will fix them, pretty simple.

[strategyfanatic]

Poor victims of the deceiving Naval Action and the Legends. Never buy sea games from Gamelabs, because they are run by one person. Other games are done well and no one has ever been banned or removed there. And they finished them. Therefore, this whining of fans of Naval Action only irritates the fact that from year to year, they go everywhere and whine. Check the article https://www.gamepressure.com/editorials/interview-with-gamelabs-founder-maksim-zasov-naval-action-hate-an/z9324 and check credits for strategy games from game-labs. Every time guys come, offended by Naval Action, and start telling their pain......
Civil war - come haters from naval action, UG:AoS - again they come and whine, new game - and again these guys. People write to them, it’s a different reality, another team, but they tell everything about their pain.

[strategyfanatic]

Originally posted by stlsf4003:

Originally posted by voix_de_frappe:

And no. We are not going to stay silent and give them crooks a chance to dupe another clientel of historical gaming.

Ten bucks say's that the devs will just nuke any and all dissenting opinions and ban anyone that talks back...as usual.

I accept your bet that no one here will be banned, because it is not Naval Action. I offer to raise it to 1000 bucks. Does somebody want to join?

[Nats]

Originally posted by strategyfanatic:

Civil war - come haters from naval action, UG:AoS - again they come and whine, new game - and again these guys. People write to them, it’s a different reality, another team, but they tell everything about their pain.

Once you get a bad name it's very difficult to shake it off especially in the gaming industry

[surprisinator]

Originally posted by strategyfanatic:

Poor victims of the deceiving producer Naval Action and the Legends - it seems as the same guy. Never buy sea games from Gamelabs, because they are run by one person. Other games are done well and no one has ever been banned or removed there. And they finished them. Therefore, this whining of fans of Maxim Zasov - the producer only irritates the fact that from year to year, they go everywhere and whine. Check the article https://www.gamepressure.com/editorials/interview-with-gamelabs-founder-maksim-zasov-naval-action-hate-an/z9324 and check credits for strategy games from game-labs. Every time guys come, offended by Naval Action, and start telling their pain......
Civil war - come haters from naval action, UG:AoS - again they come and whine, new game - and again these guys. People write to them, it’s a different reality, another team, but they tell everything about their pain.

It is called a 'reputation', dude. And it is well earned.
Don't like karma and bad reputation? How do avoid? Lock yourself in a closet for a day and think about a solution. You may even find it.

Meanwhile, the consequences of bad game development and bad treatment of customers SHOULD FOLLOW YOU AS BAD DEVELOPER ALL OVER THIS PLACE.
Or else you just repeat the same mistakes again and again. Somebody got to warn the public about game-labs, and that is naturally the vast number of customers they alienated, frauded and lost.

[William The III]

If we are looking solely at the UG/UA series, I'd say the devs have a good reputation. Gettysburg, CW, and AOS all have positive reviews and are fun games. Dreadnoughts overall has positive reviews and is still be actively developed. AR is still in the early stages of early access and the devs have always been clear that there will be plenty of issues with the game and you are essentially playing to help test and give feedback for the game. If that is not for you, then it is recommended that you wait for the steam release which is partly why the game isn't on steam yet. If you believe the price is not worth it yet, then again it is recommended you wait for steam where it will be. AR is a fun game imo and the devs are working hard to continue to make it better and by the time it gets to steam, it will be truly great.

Cursing this game before giving it a chance and cursing the devs who had to little to no involvement with other projects made my Game Labs seems somewhat premature to me. For example, it would be like saying anno 1800 is a terrible game because its made by Ubisoft

[surprisinator]

You can wind as much as you want, it is the SAME STUDIO, and if the lead programmer / project manager of American Revolution happens to be the same as of 'Dreadnoughts', of which I can't say anything negative, then he better should head off and start his own studio as fast as possible before the terrible decisions of his CEO Maxim Zasov also affect this project and doom his career by adding a bad smell to it. Because Zasov CAN. As well as the terrible phone game company StillFront which bought game-labs and is partially responsible for most ill-fated decisions Zasov had to do meantime, to please them.

[surprisinator]

Anyone want to see a desert? Join game-labs' Sea Legends discord and scroll the messages back, if you find any developer posts being worth your attention, and while you do, marvel at both the anger accumulated by attendees there, or their desperate need to hang on and hope - because "there is no alternative".
Not to mention how many asked their money back from 'Pre-order purchase' with bogus benefits being promised years ago, and even that got impossible after a too long time went by and the payment service does not comply any longer.

[usarmy16]

Originally posted by surprisinator:

Originally posted by strategyfanatic:

Poor victims of the deceiving producer Naval Action and the Legends - it seems as the same guy. Never buy sea games from Gamelabs, because they are run by one person. Other games are done well and no one has ever been banned or removed there. And they finished them. Therefore, this whining of fans of Maxim Zasov - the producer only irritates the fact that from year to year, they go everywhere and whine. Check the article https://www.gamepressure.com/editorials/interview-with-gamelabs-founder-maksim-zasov-naval-action-hate-an/z9324 and check credits for strategy games from game-labs. Every time guys come, offended by Naval Action, and start telling their pain......
Civil war - come haters from naval action, UG:AoS - again they come and whine, new game - and again these guys. People write to them, it’s a different reality, another team, but they tell everything about their pain.

It is called a 'reputation', dude. And it is well earned.
Don't like karma and bad reputation? How do avoid? Lock yourself in a closet for a day and think about a solution. You may even find it.

Meanwhile, the consequences of bad game development and bad treatment of customers SHOULD FOLLOW YOU AS BAD DEVELOPER ALL OVER THIS PLACE.
Or else you just repeat the same mistakes again and again. Somebody got to warn the public about game-labs, and that is naturally the vast number of customers they alienated, frauded and lost.

Vast number? What? Do we really need to pull up the stats of Naval Action? There was always only a handful of people playing, which shockingly, most likely had an outsized effect on development of that game. You can't keep throwing money at a product to keep a handful of people happy. That's not just bad business logic. That's insane. At the end of the day, the real problem here are consumers who are entitled, thinking they deserve hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of resources (if not millions) poured into a game that only a handful of people ever played, all because they themselves spent money on it. It's the sunk ship fallacy taken to the extreme. I get it. You spent money on a game you thought would be something like World of Warships for sailing vessels. It wasn't though. It was a commercial dud. That doesn't mean Game Labs is a bad developer simply because they didn't continue to pour resources and time into a failed game. Things like this happen in gaming literally all the time. If they were such a disreputable developer then I sincerely doubt that UG: Gettysburg, UG: Civil War, UA: Age of Sail, and UA: Dreadnought would have been the hits that they turned out to be. But sure, by your logic, because one out of five wargames was a dud while the other four were hits that means Game Labs is just such a terrible developer. Frankly, you guys entire argument is just childishly stupid.

[voix_de_frappe]

Originally posted by usarmy16:

Originally posted by surprisinator:

It is called a 'reputation', dude. And it is well earned.
Don't like karma and bad reputation? How do avoid? Lock yourself in a closet for a day and think about a solution. You may even find it.

Meanwhile, the consequences of bad game development and bad treatment of customers SHOULD FOLLOW YOU AS BAD DEVELOPER ALL OVER THIS PLACE.
Or else you just repeat the same mistakes again and again. Somebody got to warn the public about game-labs, and that is naturally the vast number of customers they alienated, frauded and lost.

Vast number? What? Do we really need to pull up the stats of Naval Action? There was always only a handful of people playing, which shockingly, most likely had an outsized effect on development of that game. You can't keep throwing money at a product to keep a handful of people happy. That's not just bad business logic. That's insane. At the end of the day, the real problem here are consumers who are entitled, thinking they deserve hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of resources (if not millions) poured into a game that only a handful of people ever played, all because they themselves spent money on it. It's the sunk ship fallacy taken to the extreme. I get it. You spent money on a game you thought would be something like World of Warships for sailing vessels. It wasn't though. It was a commercial dud. That doesn't mean Game Labs is a bad developer simply because they didn't continue to pour resources and time into a failed game. Things like this happen in gaming literally all the time. If they were such a disreputable developer then I sincerely doubt that UG: Gettysburg, UG: Civil War, UA: Age of Sail, and UA: Dreadnought would have been the hits that they turned out to be. But sure, by your logic, because one out of five wargames was a dud while the other four were hits that means Game Labs is just such a terrible developer. Frankly, you guys entire argument is just childishly stupid.

Nice fake account bootlicking game-labs...
Totally in line with game-labs ethics.

[usarmy16]

Originally posted by voix_de_frappe:

Originally posted by usarmy16:

Vast number? What? Do we really need to pull up the stats of Naval Action? There was always only a handful of people playing, which shockingly, most likely had an outsized effect on development of that game. You can't keep throwing money at a product to keep a handful of people happy. That's not just bad business logic. That's insane. At the end of the day, the real problem here are consumers who are entitled, thinking they deserve hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of resources (if not millions) poured into a game that only a handful of people ever played, all because they themselves spent money on it. It's the sunk ship fallacy taken to the extreme. I get it. You spent money on a game you thought would be something like World of Warships for sailing vessels. It wasn't though. It was a commercial dud. That doesn't mean Game Labs is a bad developer simply because they didn't continue to pour resources and time into a failed game. Things like this happen in gaming literally all the time. If they were such a disreputable developer then I sincerely doubt that UG: Gettysburg, UG: Civil War, UA: Age of Sail, and UA: Dreadnought would have been the hits that they turned out to be. But sure, by your logic, because one out of five wargames was a dud while the other four were hits that means Game Labs is just such a terrible developer. Frankly, you guys entire argument is just childishly stupid.

Nice fake account bootlicking game-labs...
Totally in line with game-labs ethics.

There is nothing even remotely fake about my account. I get it, you can't argue against anything I said so you have to make outlandish accusations about my account being fake. That seems to be a thing for you guys, making outlandish accusations and all. Nor am I bootlicking Game-Labs. It's simple business. Naval Action was a dud, with a literal handful of players in its playerbase. It was beyond obvious that it was doomed as a game, which is why I personally never bought it, even though I've played UG: Gettysburg, UG: Civil War, UA: Age of Sail, UA: Dreadnoughts, and now I'm playing UG: American Revolution. Again, for the smoothbrains in the back, just because you spend money on a game doesn't mean you're entitled to unlimited amounts of support from the developers on said failed game, especially one that was meant as a quasi live service game akin to World of Tanks or World of Warships. Game-Labs cutting their losses and moving on is not in anyway unethical. That's an utterly stupid argument that shows how emotional and entitled you are. Frankly, if you think them doing so is somehow "anti-consumer", as you alleged in another post, then you haven't remotely experienced actual anti-consumer activity from companies.

[johnmcelya2003]

guys i bought the game back in november and could not get it to load on the website. It looks like a very promising game but it just needs a lot of polish . I have enjoyed all the game labs games. I could not get it to work and they gave me a refund. I will buy it when it comes on Steam. Give the game a chance it wll be a good game .

[Toenails10]

[You have the right to not like the game but try to be less of a clown. [/quote]

this^