Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/18/2020 in all areas

  1. This is the strongest argument I've seen in this forum for the removal of limitations, causality, meaning we don't want the same effect every time, very nice.
    5 points
  2. I mean you got to admit, they have some really, really good looking ship models
    5 points
  3. With the current limitations, It really forces you into the same design a lot. Which is why I wish they would just rid of a lot of this fixed points, or just add more of them for better designs. Theres no point in a build system at that point if you end up with the same designs over and over again.
    5 points
  4. I wouldn't recommend aiming for Shikishima specifically. takes deep breath, Japanese Navy nitpick is about to begin Shikishima emulates the final design studies for the A-150-type battleships in extremely few ways. In fact, she doesn't resemble them much at all, except in the number and calibre of the main battery - and even then, the shells are much heavier than they ought to be. What few surviving records of the A-150 that exist indicate - to point out a major difference - that she was to be armed with a homogenous dual-purpose battery of 10-cm guns, dispensing with the split LA/HA
    5 points
  5. Maybe they could also add taller barbettes for the main battery guns. So you can make Ships that have for example 3 main gun turrets at the front overlapping eachother in a Bow in set up.right now the middle gun cannot fire frontally because it is blocked by the front most turret in this setup. And if you put the middle turret on a barbette as well then the rear most turret is blocked from firing frontally. A barbette that is singnificantly taller would fix this issue. THIS. The game forces you mostly in the standard 2 bow,2 stern gun design. Making something like a Nelson BB
    4 points
  6. You know? Now that I think about it, an armor rework in the future is necessary. There is still armor places that are still missing it the game such turret side and back armor, funnel armor, conning tower top and side armor. If they add those armor types with the way armor currently is a lot of ships are going to be very heavy like the Yamato and Iowa classes. Secondly I don't like how barbette armor is at the moment. The way barbette armor is now I don't how thick it is, I think barbette armor should be in the category with the other armor types where you can type how thick it is. But what do
    4 points
  7. I'm hoping we get a new model for the 19" and 20" for the German turrets something similar to this, I really love the look of these turrets
    4 points
  8. I am realy looking forward to this update, because The battle of Tsushima was a huge battle between the pre-dreadnoughts. And I love the pre-dreadnought era, so finaly I can test more things in this mission. Also as for me, the 510 mm guns are very nice. I can't wait to design Shikishima, because to be honest I won't grind 31k steel for a pixel battleship in WoWs. Oh and of course I can design this battleship on my way. The quad turrets are very nice addition to this game, and these turrets are needed for historycal reasons and of course (for me at least) more guns are always good 😁
    3 points
  9. True, although if this game goes up to 1949-1950 we maybe could squeeze it in somehow. I mean if we get a des moines/Worcester hull then the game will have tech from that period as well. We will have too see what else they add in that's closer to the 50's so we can have a noice excuse to add it in lol. Could do with more pre-dread hulls and hulls from 1925-1875 too be honest doe.
    3 points
  10. Also like @Bluishdoor76 says and this is a problem that hasn't been addressed yet, the designer needs a good rework to allow us to make more free designs in general and also more hulls, and other things to allow us to build ships to a closer historical loadout and look or go bonkers. So after the campaign i would like this to be the main focus, alongside fixing issues in the campaign itself and then they focus on whatever once they make the designer far better. That ps2 naval game did a good job of it and they could learn something from that as well.
    3 points
  11. Hope we can get quads like these as well. Frankly quads should be available for ships under 70k tonnes otherwise we can't make the proposed design for north carolina with quads nor can we have older ships with quads as well or smaller ships with quads. Plus 20 and 19inch guns should be available to hulls as small as 65 tonnes at least (even with some drawbacks, as i want to make shikishima).
    3 points
  12. Honestly, what'd be really cool is being able to customize what type of turret you can use, as in what model. Usually they're just locked behind the research year, I suppose, but I like those early dreadnaught turrets :3 Edit: I mean like a list like you see with the caliber, so you can pick what turret type you want.
    3 points
  13. Ok so the Devs said that that 20inch and 19inch guns will only be available for only certain hulls most likely the the Super BB ones. So my question is should modern BB hulls be able to carry 20inch guns especially the Japanese and Germany Nations since they are the only ones (that I know of) that planned to use these guns the H-44 class and A-150 class BBs. Plz Devs I wanna make Shikishima.
    3 points
  14. hope we also get quad gun turrets for WW1 designs like battleship Lyon and Normandie
    3 points
  15. The only way I can see Battleships as we know them making a come back is if A: laser point defense of missiles (and maybe even against aircraft) is made to be very effective, and B: You do something about submarines to make them less deadly. I don't see these happening anytime soon. On top of that I rather dispise the looks of modern war ships quite a bit, so I rather wouldn't want to see what they do to battleships.
    2 points
  16. That's only at close range, but yeah should added it to the few BBs that can sometimes counter a DD rush, but for the most part Soviet BBs aren't that unbalanced. The Soviets have been almost getting the same treatment as the Germans and keep getting powercrept. As my favorite WoWS youtuber once said, "because armor is just irrelevant against fire."
    2 points
  17. Not exactly? World of Warships bases a lot of their stuff - well, a lot of the old stuff - on actual designs and ships that existed. Now, the refits they give them (stares hard at Lyon & Normandie) are not always up to the same snuff, but that's neither here nor there. The fact is that for at least most of their lines, they have some historical basis. That's what I want, personally. More historical ships, more historical options- give me something that Wargaming can't. Give me the ability to employ ships as they were used, instead of fighting tank battles on the ocean. And by historic
    2 points
  18. I understand that it's an arcade game and balance is necessary. But a DD has no real risk when rushing a BB, the BB already has the accuracy curse due to its dispersion and being at the mercy of accuracy rolls. That is then multiplied by it's very long reload, secondaries are pretty useless for the most part. The only reason cruisers are a threat to a destroyer rushing them is because they have the accuracy and reload to minimize the bs that DDs are protected by. And that's my issue with DDs in WoWS, it rewards dumb plays that would otherwise be death for a BB or CL/CA. The only BB
    2 points
  19. He's right you know. @Cptbarney
    2 points
  20. Yeah both of these are great ideas, i was also want to see more pre-dreads as well, soo maybe the next lot of ships afterwards can be a mix of italian modern ships with pre-dread battleships, cruisers and dd's.
    2 points
  21. Neat, I really look forward to building some Richelieu style battleships, as well as those first two new missions. Especially the battle of tsushima, both of those early battles should be rather interesting. That being said I'd still really like to see a lot more weight leaning on early era dreadnoughts and predreadnoughts.. all this top loading on WW2 era content is great and all, but I thought the game was suppose to start in 1890. Still looking for echelon turrets, open gun barrettes, hulls based off the USS Maine ACR1 or USS Brooklyn ACR 3, the battleship Pelayo or the coastal defense shi
    2 points
  22. Constant modifiers in relation to maneuvering are not changing. You will not see a bigger penalty due to speed, for example. Only the aspects that are utilizing target "bearing" and "range rate" will become more dynamic. So, for example, ships that are at large distance and move fast, will create bigger penalties to aim locking due to bearing change caused by degree difference between each aiming shot. Or ships that approach or increase distance with high speed, will cause more penalties to aiming procedure. As for the Destroyers and Torpedo Boats, they will still be as vulnerable as hist
    2 points
  23. Personally, I think national traits should develop from the way you play. For example, if you always build heavily armored ships and focus R&D on armor (I'm assuming we have some influence on where to put focus in R&D), then, over time, you would get a bonus to your armor quality. If you build mainly very fast ships and invest in engine research a lot, you would get a bonus to your engine technology. You like big guns, put always the largest guns possible on your ships and invest heavily in even bigger guns? You probably should get a bonus to big guns, be it ROF, accurac
    2 points
  24. I would be fine with historical boni being implemented as an option, like, at a game's start, you can tick a check-box for "historical advantages" so nations gain the boni they had historically but if you _don't_ check that box, then nobody gains any boni unless they develop them.. I would be opposed to those boni being hard coded without any way to remove/change them. I mean, I'm pretty sure there isn't a law of nature that states that the IJN simply _has_ to develop the Long Lance and simply _has_ to train excessively in night combat. The IJN developed those techniques because they
    1 point
  25. A 510 a day,keeps the weebs away amirite?
    1 point
  26. America should of just made a 15-16k tonne heavy destroyer and then created a hull about 22k so they could test more advanced systems on it since the bigger the space the moar you have to play with. They could buy those missiles without the explosive filler and other complex parts since all they need is the thing to fly really, really fast and then launch one-by-one and maybe in a swarm and test it that way. Maybe. But yeah nice too see more developments in CIWS in-general. I would love to see AA just too see the effects in this game doe. Would be really cool nonetheless.
    1 point
  27. Hu interesting, makes sense that the ROK is developing a CIWS to counter hypersonic missiles since China is a close neighbor and one of 2 users of hypersonic missiles. Tho without their own missile I wonder how they would test it. Also that ship sort of resembles the now cancelled Zumwalt class destroyer lol
    1 point
  28. Eh, they are already working on dat. https://www.sandboxx.us/blog/the-us-navy-may-soon-have-a-way-to-shoot-down-hypersonic-missiles/ Fat missiles will go boom soon, then we can ultrasonic missiles! yay 'w' lol. Humanity likes to play checkmate with itself all the time, also ill send 2 billion letters to the pentagon to make a missile based light cruiser at 20,000 tonnes (since ships have gotten more chonk as the years have gone by).
    1 point
  29. Dreadnoughts... moar Dreadnoughts!
    1 point
  30. Yeah, I too low key want the vertical design, Idk how real that design was but I really really liked it lol Think main issue with is that it is technically a post war design so it would be outside of this game's time frame, even when pushing WW2 techs.
    1 point
  31. It was Yuro, the more meme one lol
    1 point
  32. if next update is called alpha 10 its should be about british hulls with some more visual appearance between the different hulls special the battleships and battlecruisers
    1 point
  33. BBs have accuracy curse. You know I would agree on any other day...…if Russian BBs didn't exist sense they basically have the best BB accuracy in WOWS. (because of course.) If a DD gets to close to a Russian BB in WOWS they can easily clap them out existence with one clean salvo.
    1 point
  34. To be honest the reason I went Shikishima is well the way armor and design is in this game. I reckon in WOWS Shikishima has the same armor has Yamato ( probably a few differences but whatever ) and in the current state of the game making Yamato is not easy especially with fixed points. Yamato's armor is very heavy and in this game even with the super BB hull Yamato is a hassle to make. So when the 20inch guns are added I know their going to be a lot heavier than the 18inch turrets and having four of them like in the original A-150 design is going to be hard. So until they rework the armor in s
    1 point
  35. How about some trimaran hull to support third superfiring turret (and getting a thicc antitorp belt as bonus)? Jokes aside — it seems like an interesting idea for a fantasy ship. C'mon, dew it. Hope for some verticals Smolensk-style.
    1 point
  36. Hyper sonic missiles have fixed pretty much a lot of that, as no current point defense system is capable of stopping them.
    1 point
  37. I'm loving that in the first picture, a ship in the background fired and its gun flew off xD
    1 point
  38. There all a bit smeggy doe. So we have sniper ship, bread crust ship and chubby chonkus. 'w'
    1 point
  39. the desolate color scheme is very much present in this game, it should add more color before and with a much-needed update to make the appearance attractive, it makes me desolate. in short: matte, colorless, and old-fashioned. I don't understand why this was chosen. it seriously needs more light .more hdr and not only grey, blue ,brown, industrial look
    1 point
  40. I just was curious, what Barney meant by "fantasy" hulls. My guess would be something like this only 8-barreled and in Dora caliber. And I'm okey with that.
    1 point
  41. This is actually an Arms Race with each major update. France is catching up. Oh and also who France might fight, probably Germany or Russia.
    1 point
  42. v76 custom battles database (game's database?) of DD-BB-1939 has available... Empire of Japan, 18 hulls. United States, 15, hulls. Spanish Empire, 15 hulls. German Empire, 15 hulls. French Empire, 12 hulls. I was picking Japan to be one of the two campaign nations with the most hulls but now with... would bring the French total up quite a bit putting France in the front running. Just trying to read between the lines! 🤔 Japan vs France, unlikely, who would vs France though?
    1 point
  43. Ahh i see, maybe we get both hulls maybe? or mix and match? After we get most if not all the historical hulls, im wondering if they will make, non-historical or fantasy hulls, ships in general. Cus i want Charlemagne which is basically a bigger jean bart with 3 quad 431mm guns at front lol.
    1 point
  44. Now I'm seriously impatient. Richelieu est très jolie, oui oui.
    1 point
  45. I hope that the weight increase isn't by too much, as the primary historical advantages of the concentration of the armament was that it didn't weigh as much as something like four or five twin turrets, since one could shorten the length of the armoured citadel drastically.
    1 point
  46. Hello all! Here are the latest news: Please follow the discussion in the new thread.
    1 point
  47. Will Capsizing be a thing in the game? cannot see anything confirming this on the Forums. Like for example if flood damage is so much on one side of the ship from multiple torps or waterline pens the ship just turns over and is disabled. ofcourse this depends on the size of the flood and the overall weight of the ship. a Yamato would be more difficult to capsize then a heavy cruiser,
    1 point
  48. What do you mean the US Army is the worst when coming to naming equipment, they had the M1 Garand, the M2 Carbine, the M3 Lee, the M3 Stuart the... ... Oh I see...
    1 point
  49. 1. It is not a shortsighted tactical consideration in the context of a short war fought with on-hand resources, centred on a single decisive outcome between surface fleets. 2. It is both practical and feasible to go for the larger calibres in the case of the Japanese. As you've pointed out before, Japan's industrial base and resources aren't as sufficiently advanced as the Americans (the product of going from medieval to modern in the span of a decade) so they need the calibre gap to make up the disparity. Additionally, you never once mentioned 46 cm / 18 in. You said explicitly to go to
    1 point
  • Newsletter

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