Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 02/03/2020 in all areas

  1. 13 points
    Little story from my side: LAMA was from start for fighting Russia together. We tried to convince brits to join NATO, defended havoc in our council^^ and made all to be a good part of that alliance not like "much talking nothing doing Gregory :)". But this changed my mind: It was last Russian attack on Santa Marta mid of December if I remember correctly. One day before pb Nato disc: Redii: let's do multiflip tomorrow Greg: sure we can flip this and that port... Cid: we have important Santa Marta pb tomorrow but we can flip after that. If you help to screen them we could flip earlier? No response for 22 hours 10 minutes before pb: Clerk: havocado sank British player near Puerto Escondido 2 hours later: Cid: we won pb and flipped 3 ports. Where is the multiflip? Redii: we weren't in mood to flip sth. Moral is to low organize flip. (no response from Greg but who would expect anything from him^^) Cid: but mugeres timer is still open... Redii: no we are busy... Clerk: havocado sunk brit player near Escondido, pellberry sunk brit near Escondido 12 other havoc player sunk 425 brit players near Escondido. Thx Maybe I will talk about why we left GB later
  2. 9 points
    We attacked dutch cause we dont want to play a game which is only about sweden and russia anymore. We fought russia since release and i think there are very few players which fought russia more often than KRAKE HAEVN LAMA since release. With the current frontline mechanics there are not many nations left to fight. I dont understand why Clans (like Cabal) joining sweden now to create the next zerg. Even if we would help to crush Russia now (but you see how good that alliance works) whats next? Sweden would be same Zerg as Russia before. I want a healthy balance in RVR with more than 3 Nations on the Map. So i wish every clan would think about joining a minor faction like we did for a better game
  3. 8 points
    sorry man but it had to be done. With 4 tools (which are plentiful even from NPCs) and groschen for provisions players could generate LH from thin air (out of nothing) with academy loophole. it had to be closed. LH must be reworked anyway. This system is outdated and was a placeholder in 2016. Players should be able to decide how much LH they have themselves by hiring workers feeding them and and building accommodations for them. But we cant do it now before we finish current priorities. You still all get a lot more LH than in 2018 and we will provide other sources for contracts soon.
  4. 7 points
    NPC POWER!!! All enemys was teak\WO with port bonuses
  5. 6 points
    I wouldn't call this quite an exploit due to the nature of the current use of Labour Hour Contracts. The increase in number of labour hour contracts being made is due to the fact that they must be used if you want to make crafting seasoned woods somewhat efficient. The increase of tools from 4 to 20 will make seasoned woods drastically much higher than they already are. Many clans have moved to crafting labour hour contracts to have a remote chance of crafting seasoned woods. Buying tools is extremely difficult due to low spawn rate and limited numbers of ports in which it spawns, as well as the difficulty in transporting tools due to their weight. Crafting tools is even more expensive and is high in resource usage. At the moment, a Level 7 crafter with the 25% additional labour hour perk can craft 89 seasoned logs a day. Realistically you average about 70 a day. A Level 7 crafter 25% additional labour hour perk can craft 625 tools a day. Realistically you average about 500 a day. To get enough woods to craft a Santi it would take you 39 days and for tools, 6 days with the perk, 49 days for woods and 8 days for tools without. And that's just crafting wood and tools, nothing else. An Endymion, 8-9 days for wood and 2 days for tools. Crafting seasoned woods without labor hour contracts is extremely inefficient. Before this fix, to craft a seasoned Santi, the cost just for seasoned woods, labour hour contracts, and doubloons was as followed. 3472 seasoned logs = 3472 tools, 3472 teak logs , 10,416 doubloons, and 146k Labour hours. - Tools: To buy you needed 6.5 Mil. To craft, 3.5 Mil and 17,360 iron (1 Mil), 17360 coal (70k) , and 21k labour hours. Buy: 6.5 Mil. Craft: 4.5 Mil - Doubloons: 10,416 for seasoned woods, 8745 for ship itself. 19,161 Doubloons. Reals conversion: 5.4 Mil - Labour Hours, 146k: 292 Labour Hours contracts. In other words, 1,168 tools (2.2 Mil to buy and 1.2 Mil to craft (Crafting: 5,840 coal, 5,840 iron, and 7k Labour Hours)), and 58,400 provisions. Buy tools (292 LH Contracts): 3.1 Mil. Craft Tools (292 LH Contracts): 2.5 Mil. Santi Total Cost in reals just for seasoned wood, doubloons and LH Contract cost: 15 Mil if you buy tools, 12.4 Mil if you craft tools and LH contracts just for seasoned woods. With the change, this is what happened with labour hour contracts. - Labour Hours, 146k: 292 Labour Hours contracts. In other words, 5,840 tools (11 Mil to buy and 5.8 Mil to craft (Crafting: 35,040 coal, 35,040 iron, and 35k Labour Hours)), and 58,400 provisions. Buy tools (292 LH Contracts): 14.2 Mil. Craft Tools (292 LH Contracts): 9 Mil. Santi Total Cost in reals just for seasoned wood, doubloons and LH Contract cost: 26.1 Mil if you buy tools, 18.9 Mil if you craft tools and LH contracts just for seasoned woods. One can make the argument that a Santi is an extreme case so let's look at an Endymion before this patch. 676 seasoned logs = 676 tools, 676 teak logs , 2,028 doubloons, and 29k Labour hours. - Tools: To buy you needed 1.3 Mil. To craft, 676k and 4,056 iron (251k), 4,056 coal (16k) , and 4k labour hours. Buy: 1.3 Mil. Craft: 943k - Doubloons: 2,028 Doubloons. Reals conversion: 568k - Labour Hours, 29k: 58 Labour Hours contracts. In other words, 232 tools 435k to buy and 232k to craft (Crafting: 1,160 coal, 1,160 iron, and 1,392 Labour Hours)), and 11,600 provisions. Buy tools (58 LH Contracts): 435k. Craft Tools (58 LH Contracts): 494k. Endymion Total Cost in reals just for seasoned wood, doubloons and LH Contract cost: 2.3 Mil if you buy tools, 2 Mil if you craft tools and LH contracts just for seasoned woods. With the change, this is what happened with labour hour contracts. - Labour Hours, 29k: 58 Labour Hours contracts. In other words, 1,160 tools 2.2 Mil to buy and 1.2 Mil to craft (Crafting: 5,800 coal, 5,800 iron, and 7k Labour Hours)), and 11,600 provisions. Buy tools (58 LH Contracts): 2.2 Mil. Craft Tools (58 LH Contracts): 1.8 Mil. Endymion Total Cost in reals just for seasoned wood, doubloons and LH Contract cost: 4.1 Mil if you buy tools, 3.3 Mil if you craft tools and LH contracts just for seasoned woods. So Santi cost increased by 10 Mil and Endymion increase by 1.8 Mil. Then take into account the permits for these ships run around 4 Mil for a Santi and 2 Mil for an Endy, not to mention upgrades. This just further widens the gap between players and clans, as those with huge amount of resources (i.e. Alts) will still be able to push out seasoned woods in good amounts just with added difficulty, but at the same time makes it that much harder for the players/clans who do not have that many resources. My suggestion is that it might be advantageous to increase the number of ports with tools, increase the drop rate, or lower the cargo weight; essentially make tools more accessible to buy. Especially with the reduction of the cost of crafting tools, it makes those clans with a lot of players and resources a step above those that don't. Other than the LH Contracts, fairly enjoy the patch.
  6. 5 points
    Good old forum warrior only talking bullshit ^^ Is that what you are good at? and another useless comment. Maybe you should get your facts right oh, wait, would be too much work, huh?
  7. 4 points
    Bonjour, Pryvit Not a day goes by without seeing the same behavior from one or many new players. 1. ohh, I can make some money delivering passengers 2. Let's go 3. WTH, the darn enemy port wont let me in, what a stupid game Typically at this point they are far from home, alone and friendless. In many cases it leads to atrocity as the passengers are heartlessly thrown overboard in a fit or rage or despair. Surely we are better than this? My suggestion (s). 1. If a player is lower than command of 180 men or some other cut-off point (just to draw a line in the sand and reduce unnecessary nag screens ), if they have a warship in 'main' when they take a mission they get a warning. (You are loading your mission into a warship - you wont be able to enter enemy ports to deliver it in this vessel. with a simple OK to continue) 2. Another suggestion, give every noob a note for a Trader Lynx. Thank you for considering my suggestion!
  8. 4 points
    Aunque sea un jugador veterano he estado desconectado de NA por varios años. Ya llevo varios meses desde mi último regreso y tengo la impresión de que la comunidad está peor que nunca. Hay varias cuestiones que realmente me hacen preguntar si algunos jugadores se creen que esto es un patio de colegio. 1º No acabo de entender los comentarios dentro de batalla (en mi caso ya me ha sucedido 3 veces en menos de 3 meses) relativos a que soy/somos unos cobardes por escondernos debajo el fuerte o cerca de una torre cuando somos atacados frente a la costa. Siempre contesto que es una estrategia válida pero igualmente parece ser que los contrincantes o no les cabe en la cabeza o son tan necios que creen que hieren el orgullo del jugador atacado. Estoy seguro que cualquiera, aún no estando en desventaja de BR, si no desea combatir o bien prefiere combatir desde una posición ventajosa optará por cubrirse con el fuerte. Si yo ataco a un enemigo cerca de su fuerte comprendo y espero que se refugie bajo el mismo. 2º Los Alters o multicuentas. Como buen MMO hay gente con tiempo para tener más de una cuenta. Esto, en principio, no es malo ya que te permite jugar con distintos grupos de jugadores, pero el uso recurrente para espiar a facciones enemigas durante enfrentamientos importantes es, desde mi punto de vista, poco ético. Soy consciente de que el juego no puede poner barreras al campo y evitar las multicuentas pero almenos que haya un sistema para marcar al jugador como "traidor" o "espía" y pueda ser cazado por jugadores de la misma facción. No creo que sea un sistema tan complejo de crear. Con un sistema almenos si podría hablarse de espionaje porque ahora mismo se hace con descaro y no da pie más que a enfados. 3º Insultos y faltas de respeto por doquier. Si alguien te insulta se reporta en el tribunal y luego activas el modo ignorar. Mal por el que insulta al jugador, pero masoca el jugador que no usa el sistema ignorar. Capitanes dejen sus diferencias y sus eternas enemistades a un lado. Disfruten del juego y jugador que no les sea de su agrado lo "mutean" y listo. P.D: que este hilo no se convierta en un cruce de acusación.
  9. 4 points
    Los alts (lo que llamáis espias) han sido fomentados por los mismos desarrolladores desde el principio porque han supuesto un incremento considerable de los ingresos..... a partir de ahí, todo lo que queráis......... Pero que nadie espere que hagan algo en contra de una buena fuente de ingresos........ Siempre han existido, desde el principio del juego se ha evitado comentar lo que se hace en el chat nacional precisamente por eso, no nos rasguemos las vestiduras ahora.......... El único problema es que hasta ahora estaban camuflados como cabe en un buen espía, y ahora se permiten ponerse el mismo nick en ambas cuentas sin ningún problema......... y eso es lo que escandaliza, pero vaya............ que vean ahora los alts como un problema hace llorar al niño jesús........... porque llevan siéndolo desde el principio.......... Y el ser espias no son el principal problema de los alts........... si me apuráis, es el menor de los problemas de todos los que generan, en batallas, en comercio etc etc............. En cuanto a que la gente es mala, y miente, y se insulta y tiene poca educación............ pues que queréis que os diga............. Que esto es lo que hay, en español, en inglés y en ruso........... en todos los juegos, en la calle, en el colegio y en los ambulatorios........... Desgraciadamente.......
  10. 4 points
    I'd very much LOVE to see a system where you request "workers" to craft a ship, and depending the the amount of workers you hire determines how long it takes to craft the ship. lets say 3 stages and you want to craft a Wasa. The standard rate for crafting would be 300 workers or something (example) 150 Workers - takes 4 real life hours to have the ship finished 300 Workers - takes 2 real life hours to have the ship finished 600 Workers - Takes 1 real life hour to have the ship finished. The more Workers you hire, the larger the "labor" cost is to craft the ship. An incentive to use more Workers could be that you get higher chances for better quality ships. I'm taking this straight from current Eve Online "production system" in that if you want to craft certain goods or ships, it takes a certain amount of time BUT, you can have multiple goods being created at once and all of them could have different finishing dates. I am not proposing a drastic change, only the following. Instead of waiting for the right amount of Labor Hours to then craft a ship instantly, I am proposing that we choose to craft the ship NOW and then wait (x) hours for it to then be ready for accepting it into your shipyard (dock). EDIT: Labor Contracts could be an item to help grant "extra assistance" to your crafting requests. We could make them incredibly versatile and cool. Labor contracts could do the following in crafting 1. Speed up crafting time 2. steer your workers to make the ship a certain quality 3. to give a Ship being crafted a higher chance to get a trim quality (fast, sturdy, cramped, etc)
  11. 4 points
    it was never creating 500lh out of 300. You needed the provisions. Creating 200 provisions takes just over 100lh. So it was 500 out of 400. Changing the requirement for a labor contract to 400 provisions would close the loophole without DOUBLING the cost of a seasoned wood ship, and would encourage clan organization as it would require 120k provisions to build a seasoned wood l'ocean worth of contracts.
  12. 4 points
    dear @admin i'm really tired of your behaviour with patch notes. you changed something in privateer fleet and now they are like Elite Bot , fast upwind ,fast downwind, full HP and thickness. today i risked losing an ocean due to Privateer santi that ran from behind me after killed a bot 1.5 km away, reached me, passed me, closed wind in front of me, passed front of my bow, tac and fired on the other side , all in less than 5 minute...while a trinco was losing only half of its side for my full penetration ocean's broadside... i'm not against changes, but you must write what you changed in every patch thx
  13. 3 points
    Welcome to the Caribbean set of updates has started. New ships Le Suffren/Redoutable The Great Redoutable that bravely fought against 3 British and almost boarded HMS Victory has been added to the game as an imported ship. Le Duguay-Trouin/HMS Implacable The great tragedy for the age of sail history happened when the ship that participated in Trafalgar was sank by a decision of some idiot in the British Government in 1949 We have made amends, the beautiful ship has been fully restored and is now available for sailing in all its glory in Naval Action. Blueprint added to shipyards. Permit added to chest. Admiraal De Ruyter has been added to the game as a ghost ship (it is in but not available because it still requires some tuning. It will be available soon. New paints have been added to Paint DLC for Redoutable and Implacable. Fixes Fixed the rare case where player could spawn in two instances in the same (for example when attacked by to players or NPCs) Slowed down NPC Port Battle Raiders by 2 knots (they are now 2 knot slower than player ships), Removed penalties to HP and Structure. Fixed a soft exploit for Labor contracts which allowed generating extra 200LH out of air for an abnormally low cost. (Thanks Captain S. for pointing us to this exploit) Moved a Mortimer town protection zone 5% upwards away from the Windward passage. They could sill reach this zone but much more rarely. New player starting mandatory mission Welcome to the Caribbean has been delayed. It is in game but require some more tuning and testing. It will be delivered as soon as final testing is finished. As a result here is an expected patch flow for this expansion 1) Part 1 - New ships - Will be completed by end of Feb (new flags will also be added) 2) Part 2 - New player mission and additions and improvements of NPC agression on the OW (inlcuding adding solo privateers to patrol zones in limited numbers) 3) Part 3 - Cheap edition and new pricing schedule (some pleasant surprises for all captains who own the current version will be in this part) Discuss.
  14. 3 points
    This entire topic was a shitpost from day one.
  15. 3 points
    Yet Prussia has not multiflipped with Russia even once? So you should have all your players to fight every PB from each side. VP even had 20+ french helping with screening more than once against Prussia. You were the 3rd biggest nation just weeks ago but had no PB or RvR fleet, basically cause VP as a nation did practically nothing in RvR for months, just happily sitting in the corner of the map. VP only has it's own clan leaders and officers to blame for not being able to create a capable RvR fleet with more than enough players to do it. Maybe their interest just wan't there or their motivation but that's VP own's fault.
  16. 3 points
    There is a game right now in development trying to get carrier battles right and the amount of work going into just air operations is staggering. They've said they won't even be trying to do big gun surface combat. It makes sense to me then, that the opposite should be true. I'd rather UA:D get say Jutland exactly right rather than try to do a complex air system as well.
  17. 3 points
    Ignorar y no hacer nada más es permitir al abusador seguir abusando de otras personas.
  18. 3 points
    Eso no justifica nada. Y además no hacemos nada por acabar con acosos y ataques de todo tipo, sea en la facción que sea. Y eso nos deja en muy mal lugar, porque al contrario que los adolescentes que no se enteran de la misa a la mitad, la mayoría de nosotros somos personas ya formadas, tanto cultural, profesional como por edad. Por eso somos más culpables.
  19. 3 points
    I would agree if russia wouldnt already be that big. Thats why we went denmark at release and CABAL went dutch at release....
  20. 3 points
    Hola compi. No creas que las discusiones, faltas de respeto y persecuciones, en algunos casos, son exclusivas de la comunidad de habla hispana en el juego. Te puedes dar un paseo por otras facciones para que veas la hermosa comunidad con la que te vas a encontrar. El troleo está a la orden del día, en el foro, los chats del juego, discord o ts. Que me lo digan a mí. Dicho queda y te invito a que traduzcas el post a inglés para que sea de dominio público en el foro. Que la gente se pelea contra el que manda, que si perdemos todo son palos, que si esto y lo otro...Pues no veas la que se monta en otra facción por los mismos temas y encima te lo tienes que comer en inglés. Si toda la energía que ponemos en destrozarnos los españoles y la gente de habla hispana, en general, fuese empleada en la facción española del juego, ahora tendríamos los navíos de línea Santa Ana y Montañés a disposición. Pero nos toca tragar con que metan más facciones en el juego, de las que nunca fueron vistas banderas en esas aguas. Saludos.
  21. 3 points
    Let's have duel snow vs Krake 3v3? this story didn't hurt my ego and I'm not salty about it. It just showed what allies you get in Nato
  22. 3 points
    It's still keep going here. Lol. Just enjoy the content. And Btw I guess GB doesn't care about bragmans haulovrr etc. If you get arround the edge towards trux it will be hard. You will see. I enjoy the content you create and can learn something in big engages and maybe pbs
  23. 3 points
    @MassimoSud might have a big ego😂, but he's not involved in politics (ridiculous for a game) nor in diplomatic stuff so... again you guys are talking without having a clue. (Not surprised).
  24. 3 points
    I understand your point, but those are clearly destroyers.
  25. 3 points
    Within certain limits, sure. Beyond those certain limits... allowing for that would totally break immersion of the campaign. You're supposed to take the role of the CiC of the fleet, and decide on designs, build programs, etc (within the given funds). But even powerful men in such a powerful position were limited in what they could or not get away with. A big warship, a battleship, is a capital ship. Is both a machine of war and an iconic image of the prestige and power of a nation. There's a lot that goes into building one of those things, money, resources, man hours of tremendously skilled and specialist labor, spent on a machine of war that's intended to be the incarnation of your power, and the means of telling the world you're an important part of it. You obviously decide what you build but if you go completely mindf*ck with ships that size, you're not getting away with it. Guaranteed. Just think of the kind of jokes your nation and fleet would be the target of if you go with ships with guns that small. It'd be the laughingstock of d*ck jokes in the international scene. "mine's bigger than yours". "if those are the biggest guns they can put on a warship guess the size of the ones in their pants"... You get the idea. And no, that kind of stuff would not fly. At all. Neither with the politicians in power, nor with the normal regular guys on the street whose taxes, after all, are paying for a ship worth a fortune that's only good for ridiculizing his own nation. The same way Fisher couldn't get rid of battleships and go with a battlecruiser only fleet (what he really wanted to), you're also going to have certain limits because of prevalent doctrine, public opinion, parlament if any, dictator if not. Those in power will fire you on spot if you try to spend millions on a battleship with 6'' guns because that's literally "pullin a Joker" on a mountain of bills. You might aswell burn that mountain of money. And the powers that be won't let you do it. Like it or not there's a certain responsability attached to being given a role of that nature... So TL:DR: one thing is getting creative with your designs, which of course the game should let you do. Another is just putting out dumb worthless stuff wasting fortunes in both money and resources, and expecting the taxpayer not to demand you to be immediately removed from your seat if you order exceedingly dumb warships. Game should let you get away for the former...certainly should not with the later ;).
  26. 2 points
    I decided to try to determine the formula for the Target Ship Size modifier to accuracy. Methodology This was done in Alpha 3. Things could change in Alpha 4. In 1890, all TBs are exactly 200 tons. Thus I could repeatedly use this to factor out the effect of displacement. I looked at several Target Ship Size modifiers for enemy TBs randomly generated in custom battles and compared them to Target Signatures computed from their components. I found that the chance to hit them was proportional to (100% + 1.75% * Target Signature), which matches the Ship Detectability modifier in the designer exactly. Another way of putting it is that a ship's chance to be hit is proportional to (1 + Target Signature / 57.1). Then I compared ships of several displacements, including two CLs and a BB, divided out the Target Signature factor, and found that the remaining trend was perfectly linear. Specifically, the base chance to be hit is about 14.4% + 1.54% per thousand tons displacement. Another way of putting it is that a ship's chance to be hit is proportional to (1 + displacement / 9350 tons). Result The multiplier for a ship's chance to be hit from Target Ship Size modifier is approximately (1 + displacement / 9350 tons) * (1 + Target Signature / 57.1) * 14.4%. Implications For small ships, Target Signature doesn't matter too much because that factor will be dominated by the constant 57.1. Going from 15 to 25 Target Signature makes you only 14% easier to hit. On the other hand, large BBs can reach hundreds of Target Signature, and in these cases Target Signature is much more important---going from 150 to 250 Target Signature makes you nearly 50% easier to hit. Likewise, for small ships displacement doesn't matter that much. A 600 ton TB is only 3.1% easier to hit than a 300 ton TB for equal Target Signature. And again, it matters more for large ships; a 60 000 ton BB is 76% easier to hit than a 30 000 ton BB. Commentary If we figure that ships scale up uniformly in all three dimensions with displacement and that chance to be hit is proportional to surface area, this would rather imply a baseline chance to be hit proportional to displacement in tons^(2/3). I think this is a more realistic starting point. If desired, you could again add an offset in order to simulate near-misses and make TBs a little less hard to hit. Still, the current displacement modifier seems at least serviceable. The effect of Target Signature on chance to be hit seems far too dramatic to me. I would not expect the main battery configuration to make such a dramatic difference in the difficulty of getting a fire solution on a ship; while turrets are large, they are also relatively low to the deck and potentially moving around; I would probably prefer to point my rangefinder at a nice, tall mast instead. Perhaps make this modifier based on the towers only, or nix it entirely. With the current Target Signature mechanics I would expect every player BB to end up like Richelieu in order to maximize firepower-per-Target Signature.
  27. 2 points
    Hello Admirals, Thank you very much for your ongoing feedback and your fantastic participation in the forum, where you share so many interesting ideas and historical knowledge with us. We would like to inform you about the planned improvements of the next patch. SPECIAL NEW FEATURES Two new 3D Base Models ships: the legendary battleship "Bismarck" and the mighty battlecruiser "HMS Hood": Bismarck and Hood hulls are available in new Naval Academy missions and Custom Battles (after year 1927). Improved Damage Decals: The damage is more detailed, according to where it actually happened and the ship now becomes more realistically darkened. Soon, all Towers, Funnels, weapons will have a detailed special appearance when destroyed. New secondary gun barbettes: You can now create special looking and realistic ships by using a combination of barbettes for your secondary guns, on the centerline or at the sides. These barbette mounts appear when mounting main gun or special towers. If the hull is not wide or enough, you might not be able to use them all efficiently. NEW NAVAL ACADEMY MISSIONS German Pride: Design a powerful German battleship and attack the English fleet, in a similar way as it happened in the historical battle of the Denmark straits. Prove your Might: Your British battlecruiser must defend a valuable convoy against a German Battleship and a heavy cruiser. Can your ship do better than HMS Hood? Modern Battleship vs Destroyers: Your battleship must survive the attack of multiple Destroyers. The US Super Battleship: A group of large dreadnoughts that have been modernized by the Japanese Navy is sailing back for refueling. You have the opportunity to attack and sink them with your much more powerful super-battleship, before strong reinforcements arrive. Design your own H-class: Create the continuation of the legendary Bismarck-class and defeat a US Fleet. Hurry Up: A German raiding squadron is approaching your lightly protected military convoy while you are far away. Build the naval force that will be capable to travel fast and repel the enemy. OLD MISSION IMPROVEMENTS Mission: "Heavy Duty" has now objective to only kill the super battleship. Previously it could be also won if all cruisers were sank, ending the battle prematurely. Mission: "Search & Destroy" has been improved. You need to destroy the two BB before strong enemy reinforcements arrive and make your task harder. Mission: "Torpedo Basics" has more available money, so that more torpedo boats can be built (The mission could become very hard against a much more powerful battleship, due to the new settings). New hulls have been added to missions “Rise of the Heavy Cruiser”, “The Modern Battleship”, Sink "The Cruiser Killer", “Heavy Duty”. VISUAL & SHIPS Several new gun models added. Please note that the rescales and improvement of guns as well as the general improvements of ship designer could make your saved designs non functional. Various hull fixes for better looking ship designs at all technology eras. Three more super-battleships based on Bismarck and Iowa hulls. You can find those ships in new Naval Academy missions and in Custom Battles (after year 1929) More hull variants of late tech, mostly based on the new 3D models: 6xBB (Britain, Russia, Japan, Austro-Hungary, China), 2 x BC (Germany, Russia), 3x CA (Germany, Austro-Hungary, USA). These ships are also distributed to the other nations so that custom battles after year 1927 include more late technology ships for all countries. CONTROLS You can now set specific targets for main guns, secondary guns and torpedoes as follows: All weapons: Right Click Torpedoes: Shift + Right Click Secondaries: Alt + Right Click Main Guns: Shift + Alt + Right Click Weapon Fire Mode (ammo control) is now working per division, not per ship. BATTLE INTERFACE Improved damage float up info, showing more clearly the damage inflicted on ships, and fixing issues that caused game performance drop. BALANCES/INCONSISTENCY FIXES Damage/Penetration of guns is balanced according to feedback of players. Capital ships should be more durable. Secondary guns will still be useful but not overpowered. Improvement in accuracy mechanics. Big Guns will not have so much accuracy difference with smaller guns. Aiming will be more dynamic, so that maneuvers or steady course will affect aiming accordingly. AI Design of Battlecruisers will prefer to use armor more, and not make weakly protected ships. AI Design of Destroyers will be more effective and will focus more on speed and maneuverability. Additionally, the minimum speed of Destroyers is 26 knots. Fixed issue of not updating torpedo stats according to techs/components used. Now torpedoes should be more properly effective depending on their technology level. Fixed issue of accuracy that could make AI not to fire vs very small torpedo boats or Destroyers at a range that they should. Minor rebalance of reload penalty/bonus according to shell type. Light shells should be quite more effective for short range. Heavier shells reload slightly slower. Minor rebalance of Lyddite shells, so that they continue to be effective after the new damage changes. Tube Powder shells gain a further slight bonus in penetration and reload. BUG FIXES Several issues of buggy gun rotations have been addressed. Fixed issue of interrupting smoke screen emission for ships becoming detached. Fixed various reported problems that caused gun overlapping with towers. Other minor bug fixes reported by players. OTHER Various performance optimizations. AI in custom battles will never retreat. It is a temporary fix and later we will add this as an option. The above mentioned changes are not absolutely final, as we continue to add improvements. The update is soon going to receive internal testing, and if all is working right, we estimate to release it next week. Thank you for reading! The Game-Labs Team
  28. 2 points
    Whats with the cringey and desperate attempts to get prussia to attack russia? As far as i know russia and prussia are doing their own things... which is actually healthy for the game. i mean idk why the swedes and their allies are still trying to play the underdog card when they consistently have more players than anyone else for rvr. Not sure why they think they need the whole server on their side.
  29. 2 points
    So anyone who attack VP is " Russia's bitch" ? Can you explain why pls?
  30. 2 points
    El tema de las cuentas alternativas da para mucho debate. Se puede utilizar dentro de la misma facción, e incluso el mismo clan, para producir todo lo necesario en el crafteo sin las limitaciones de edificios para ello. Esta opción es la menos dañina en mi opinión. Ya podrían los programadores ampliar el dlc admiralty conection y saldríamos ganando. También las hay en facciones diferentes para obtener una serie de recursos que te resulta imposible desde la otra cuenta. Pero cuando lo empiezan a usar para reventar el mercado de comercio de recursos de crafteo para upgrades, por ejemplo, ya el daño se dispara de forma considerable. Otro ejemplo dañino es el monopolio de los recursos más valiosos de comercio en esa facción a la que accedes desde tu segunda cuenta. Ejemplos de eso hemos tenido muchos en el juego y en su momento fueron reportados con intervención posterior de los desarrolladores. Pero el aspecto más dañino, en mi opinión, surge cuando se usa para alterar la política en el juego y monopolizar batallas de puerto en el RvR. De sobra son conocidos los casos de clanes enteros jugando en facciones diferentes, afectando a la política y reservándose un sitio seguro en las batallas de puerto que se presenten. En el mismo saco meto al que se dedica a trolear desde esa segunda cuenta en las batallas que se disputen. En lo referente a los insultos en el juego, no entiendo lo del chat general en batalla. Con dejar sólo la opción de chat para la gente que integra el mismo equipo se pondría la primera piedra para solucionar este tipo de actuaciones. Me ha tocado sufrirlo en más de una ocasión y sólo te queda la alternativa del reporte en el tribunal del foro.
  31. 2 points
    We, as a clan(FPM on PvE), have done numerous port defenses and I would like to make a suggestion please. The NPC/AI circle control and attacks are extremely difficult. I will be nice if the NPCs numbers, and capture control points could be reduced sligthly (I recommend a start of about 20-30%). I suggest instead of 6 Indiaman- 2 total and their number capture points reduced by half. If the war ships capture points could be reduced by 20-30% that would bring it to a more attainble level and contribute to a more engaging battle. The crew/hull numbers reduced sligthly the battles would be more engaging and maintain their challenge; our last defense battle the Bellonas had crews of 797ish - consider 650 to 695. Right now, port defense it's extremely difficult to win. The few we have managed to win and where very close to a loss, sometimes within a few points short of the 1000 (maybe increase the capture number to 1500). I understand the setting the bar high will turn ports over to the Raiders for attacks by other nations and give clans a teamwork challange, however, please consider these tweeks for future port defense battles. Attacking port battles; the defending NPCs could be increased (I shudder to say this) slightly. I suggest NPC defenders be given a ship or two more or increase their BR at most. That would bring the challenge up slightly for now and once the dust settles you could look at the challenge factor again consider further modifications. Another idea I have, please bare with me. What about Raiders attacking more unused or lesser used ports including Freetowns or Freeports such as La Mona, give the Freetowns guns emplacements and make those "tough as wallnuts" to crack.
  32. 2 points
    I have also been in a few port Battles and we have literally been run over. The AI comes hell bent for the circle and everything in their way be damned. We lost some good ships defending what at times seems to be undefendable. Those numbers that Bubba posted would help to lower the frustration many of us feel right now trying to defend our home turf. I feel that nerfing the AI just a bit will help greatly. Right now we are about 50% successful in defending ports. The ones we lost the amount of resources to bring it back online is staggering. Thank you for considering this posting.
  33. 2 points
    Nuevo Videooo!! Espero que les guste
  34. 2 points
    i think this would work perfectly in this game, its also much more about your own accomplishment if you want stuff crafted quicker. Also it can be scaled from alot of values
  35. 2 points
    Will the Ottoman Empire be available ? Or our South American friends Argentina, Brazil and Chile (Peru just so they dont feel left out and start something)...if China is playable then historically the above were all as strong as naval powers in the 1890-1930's.
  36. 2 points
    @admin add warning (icon) when entering Capital waters where NPC fleets can attack you. Otherwise good update.
  37. 2 points
    Sorry, how dare I not immediately respond to the great and mighty Cid! :') Christ imagine being so petty to attack someone months later over something they don't even remember lol.
  38. 2 points
    ей даже отдельный раздел нужно создать. "плаксивый джо" А клан можно назвать "SLEZA"
  39. 2 points
    Another fix would be removing them as they introduce several inbalances. One of them is the difference in stats between a DLC ship as Redoutable (redeemed with S woods with one click) against its competitor, Implacable.
  40. 2 points
    The solution is not in removing forts (or nerfing them). It is in balancing them in capabilities with the mortar brig. Mortar brigs used to be too powerful vs the forts. Now they are too weak. Balance them Then you will have some ports require a higher percentage of your fleet be mortar brigs than others because of fort placement. I don’t think it’s unreasonable that an attacker need 6 mortar brigs to be successful in some ports. BUT as in most things in this game, adjusting one thing affects other things. Forts should require special maintenance and damage done in one port battle should have to be repaired before the next.
  41. 2 points
    The differences in visibility are grossly exaggerated in game currently, just as is the distance various ships can see with towers that are all of similar height. Visual detection should depend more on visual conditions and less on the object observed. That difference should play more of role around the margins of visual detection.
  42. 2 points
    Here's what I could find: +X Long-Range Accuracy and +X% Long-Range Accuracy do exactly the same thing, but only the former appears on the right panel. Same for Base Accuracy. Like most things in the ship designer, but unlike accuracy modifiers in combat, these modifiers stack additively with themselves. So if you have two +100% the total is +200%, not x4. I think it stacks multiplicatively with the Base Accuracy modifier. It's a bit hard to tell for sure due to the limited precision of the accuracy display, but my conjecture is that 0.01x of the Long-Range Accuracy modifier is applied per km of distance. For example, at 25 km, a quarter of the modifier would be applied. This doesn't seem to depend on the maximum range of the gun, only the absolute distance. So the final equation I would conjecture to be (base chance) * (1 + sum of Base Accuracy modifiers) * (1 + 0.01 * distance in km * sum of Long-Range Accuracy modifiers). Given that most damage seems to be done at closer than 20 km I think it's best to use Coincidence (Base Accuracy) rather than Stereoscopic (Long-Range Accuracy) in most cases.
  43. 2 points
    Yeah, but if its not in the game then people will just look at the trailer, try and find it in the game. Then will complain or even actively go out there way to convince people not to play. I mean you should of checked the reddit for the puerto rico disaster in world of warships and how even though some of stuff might be considered minor, it still drew a huge amount of ire towards the devs (and justfied as well in the more reasonable comments anyways), im just making sure the devs get the least amount of 'credible' hate if you get my meaning (hopefully lol). I hope so, its a really interesting mechanic and i think they confirmed it worked but was too complex to implement. I guess for now they may use sliders to end adjust length and width but keeping with the same hull. I really like the idea however hope it comes to furition.
  44. 2 points
    Eh some people still think you need to play the game their way, regardless if its a singleplayer or not. I've said it many times before give people the option to go as historical or unhistorical as they like within the bounds of scope and time (in terms of developing this game). If it's gonna be like rule the waves then i think people can quickly forget about historical engagements unless theres an actual historical mode for that purpose. I think you should be to design werid ships even if they may not be practical, i mean the game might punish you for it (either economically or militarily), but that depends on the ship and what else you have avaliable.
  45. 2 points
    the devs want us to buy dlc. I think that's the reason why it was changed with the tools
  46. 2 points
    Need more realistic terminology in-game. Get rid of the word Clan altogether (Looong overdue!) Perhaps Squadron for smaller "clans" and Fleet for bigger ones. Embrace your niche, Game-Labs. Give opportunity for history of the period to really shine. I've been watching those flying simulator games with Airforceproud95 and among all the hilarity they really go for realism in their communications. Maybe this is more of a complaint about the community, but one shouldn't feel like a LARP'er for using terms anyone can find in Dean King's lexicon, or online at https://www.historicnavalfiction.com/general-hnf-info/naval-fiction-glossary You are now released, and fine tuning the realism experience should be on your to-do list.
  47. 2 points
    Yes.. Its already in prototype, if you have too much sail in strong wind your masts will get stressed and eventually break. Ramming, damage from hitting rocks at high speed, etc) Navigation is a skill and player can have it all to himself or hire an officer with high navigation skills to help him determine position (some mistakes will happen) Most UI will be physical, for example barometer will be a physical device, that player have to watch from time to time to see if wind is going to change (officers with good Wind Reading will also give hints if they know something is going to happen) As above, all instruments will be physical, but for those who are not into hardcore realism can open panels with all necessary data (like in NA). You can travel real time. The world is build around you. Kingdom come deliverance. Very good single player game from europe.
  48. 1 point
    The LH plans sound promising, though it has to be carefully balanced with the redeemable ships. I see, you have a lot of work to do...
  49. 1 point
    Just a word of warning to Sweden. As we all know this game ebbs and flows,one minute your strong ,the next you are weak. so whilst your tightening your grip around GB's throat just be careful how you conduct yourselves..................................As we will not forget nor forgive when the tables are turned.......Muuuaaaaahhhhhhh
  50. 1 point
    oh tell me its a permit build . notes are ok because you can chose the build with out materials but i prefer port bonuses so much more
  • Newsletter

    Want to keep up to date with all our latest news and information?
    Sign Up
  • Create New...