Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/21/2020 in all areas

  1. It's not a simulation because we can actively form a meta to the game. I.e. Designing ships to meet specific circumstances or exploit feature's for our benefit. Sims use real world designs that the player uses in a scenario. I dont know of any "Sims" that allow you to change aspects of the vehicle you are using to fit a certain criteria, sims usually make it so the player uses the vehicle within set parameters to the fullest not designing its own. Also this game literally can not be a sim and has never been advertised as a sim just realistic combat which many games offer their take on. T
    5 points
  2. I have FREQUENTLY stated that I do NOT expect "100% realism", as though that would be possible regardless. What I DO want is patently ABSURD situations to be addressed. By which I mean aspects that are SO far removed from ANYTHING within even a very generous and broad definition of "reasonable" or "accurate" or, dare I say it, "at least makes some sort of sense". THOSE I want addressed. CLs and CAs that are nigh indestructible because of MAX bulkheads while the pre-dread BB next to them is sunk by 2 hits that cause flooding in the bow and stern and apparently the BB had no transverse
    5 points
  3. This right here is what everyone needs to understand. This is a very small team working on something big and fact is what they have so far is amazing considering how small the team is. As for realism, it's good to a degree. Like Bluishdoor76 said War Thunder did it and look what happened. People bloody hated it. So light ships such as DDs and CLs so be tough enough that they can take a few hits such as over-pens but not like how in WOWs they take them and they're completely fine. As for the limitations on ship designs, they have to get rid of that soon. It is literally the biggest thing going
    5 points
  4. Agreed. I personally love WT realistic because it's actually harder to die though :P. I will say that this game operates in a sort of quazi history realm where you can literally change the course of history. And this game can't really be a sim because we make our own ships essentially. People are going to find meta's and more effective countermeasures in the game against various types of units because we have the opportunity to essentially create hundreds of variants and "test" them in combat. Which might not be historically accurate because maybe it's more cost effective for you to build torp
    4 points
  5. I just want functional and easy to place echelon turrets and the ability to build and then explode the USS Maine. Is that too much to ask?
    4 points
  6. Maybe for you but IMO I think the main “appeal” here is the 3D assembly. Every game has some form of upgrades in which players adds to their game object. UAD does it in 3D and that’s unique, players get to be modelers at their level. And also that’s why I think Custom Battles will be the best asset (once develop alittle more) because it will utilize Designer Tool to its fullest potential. Along these lines a 'simulator designer tool' simply won’t reach its aptitude, as soon as you designate the game as a simulator is when limitations are applied (and everyone love those!!!), since with a
    3 points
  7. If it's not a simulation of the real factors that influenced ship design, then what is the point? The real driving interest here is how alternative designs perform in relation to historical designs. If the game is not grounded in that, I'm not sure what the appeal is in a historical wargaming market. Also, please don't compare to MP games. That is a completely different dynamic.
    3 points
  8. I think some people do have some very unrealistic expectations for this game, it's still a very small team after all with limited assets. I'm also of the belief that 100% realism is just not that fun, I remember from my world of tanks days how so many people wished the game would be more realistic. They eventually got their wish when War Thunder ground forces released a lot of them went, wow this sucks, I hate this, I just die in 1 hit. Imho a balance between arcadiness, which this game already has, and realism is the best way to go. With mod support for those who are willing to put the work t
    3 points
  9. Great news : the game can be pre-ordered (just done 😉) Thanks for this update Admin, looks amazing https://www.sea-legends.com/blog/autumn-development-update
    2 points
  10. Too be fair if the game is still fun, ill still play it regardless. I think the devs are keeping their options open as i've learnt in game design, the final product seldom ever resembles the previous iterations or various plans and ideas unless you have such a solid and determined mindset and/or love the idea itself. All we can do is wait, see what they give us and then tell them what they are doing well, what they are doing wrong and then also what they could do better. And if they succeed with this game we can then tell everyone how good they are, at either game like these or in-ge
    2 points
  11. Especially the last part, at least for me, is quite important. As of right now, I am still unsure about the current status of the game. One man's expectation on this forum appears to be another user's absolute nightmare. Yet both seem realistic in their respective vision, because the devs never explained as to which audience they wish to cater. Having at last *some* form of explanation as to where our journey is heading might alleviate the pain of not knowing what is yet to come. As it stands right now, many expectations are detrimental to each other and clearing up some of the mist surroundin
    2 points
  12. And i also did some more work on ORP Warszawa. (lol you didn't see the mistake ) The casemates are 152mm's ill put some smaller 92mm casemates around the superstructure and maybe at the front and rear ends of the ship. She still has a way to go however.
    2 points
  13. IJN Hitachi. Displacement: Full Load 92,000 Tonnes Length: 345m's. Beam: 52m's. Draft: 20m's (Full). Propulsion: 6 shafts, 6 Horizontal turbo-electric steam turbines. 18 Water-Tube Boilers. 235,000 SHP Speed: 32knots (Could push to 36 knots if needed for 3 hours.). Range: 9,200 nmi at 20.5knots. Complement: 205 officers, 2400 Crew (Needs less crew for its size due to more automatic features and loaders). Armament: 2x4 510mm Guns (20.1inch), 3x2 162mm guns. 7x2 130mm guns. 18x2 36mm guns. 6x2 62mm guns. 3x2 36mm guns (Turrets). Armour: Belt mai
    2 points
  14. Yeah those are 350mm guns on her hull, shes about 170-175m's in length and about 32-35m's wide and about 12-16m'a in depth total. Took inspiration from the french dreadnought bb and nassau.
    2 points
  15. The devs said they want to make a realistic game . However they do not want to go for for a simulator according to one of stealth's video's. I believe it was the QA one.if you are lookiling at this game through the lens of a smulator game then you are setting yourself up for dissapointment. If people want to drop the game because of one mechanic not being realistic. Sure go ahead. Its pretty shallow to do so though if you look what the game is offering in other places. Just remember that the devs never promised a 100 procent realistic game. Which by definition would be a simulator. I
    2 points
  16. I have become extraordinarily jaded towards any and all promises of 'realism' and 'historical accuracy' from any game that promises it. We might ask for things, but ultimately, the only way to get something is to do it yourself - hence, I think, the continued insistence on mod support. If they won't give us realistic parameters, we'll just have to make them ourselves.
    2 points
  17. Hello Admirals, We would like to share news about the progress we have so far and the status of the upcoming update. The team’s reorganization is working great and we are very happy with the results. These last 2 months we have touched upon all major aspects of the game with the new lead programmer (from formations to AI to ship designer) - and finally we can say - now the new team is more than ready to continue with the development of the campaign. We plan to add extra resources in November, which will help us to speed up the develo
    1 point
  18. Good, we are looking forward to the next step with great impatience!
    1 point
  19. Sounds like you're a similar player to me. I don't like to game the game (seems kind of pointless to cheat yourself) and I like a difficult but not ridiculous challenge. You can play MG and change a couple of settings in the AI config file: AI scaling and AI experience something or other. I've played around with them before (0.75 - 0.85) but never quite hit the sweet spot. Would be interested to see what you come up with.
    1 point
  20. 1 point
  21. In this universe, some tech arrived earlier and so nations got to experiment for a lot longer. Also in this universe Poland is 45% bigger than it is from the commonwealth (so take the commonwealth and add 45% more land mass in all directions), having more sea to defend, plus land as well. The Polish Technocracy its called as they formed a government based on a technocratic-meritocratic-constitutional government and has ruled for about 120 years or so (so Poland formed a lot earlier and also science and tech gained far more fascination with elites and the people as well). They have th
    1 point
  22. Seems like a powerful early dreadnought
    1 point
  23. Nice looking ship with interesting layout! Are those guns same caliber?
    1 point
  24. I was wondering what the best gun and artillery is for late game. I have been struggling to understand the stats and what to pick for my army.
    1 point
  25. Since this issue seems to be mostly ignored or misunderstood I made a GIF trying to demonstrate this: Target Maneuver penalty % slaved to Rudder's position. [Link - imgur.com] (Original clip created: 26 August 2020. Version # / № might not be correct.) If the resolution is insufficient, give me a holler. This was first reported back in February 2020, ~ 8½ months ago: Another example: Wholeheartedly agree. I've been meaning to contribute such as with the GIF but previous attempts kept giving me this bitter taste in my mouth, thinking: "Meh, what's the
    1 point
  26. Thank you for the latest updates, continue to enjoy these mods. I have a question, I have been playing several campaigns and have only made it to the Peninsula so far, it seems that on Brig. General difficulty it is starting to be too easy and no longer feels historical if you will. However I just started to play on Major General difficulty and cannot win the battle of 1st Manassas as the confederates. I get swept off Mathews hill almost immediately and cannot hold the stone bridge long enough for Jacksons Brigade to show up with reinforcements. Is there a way to somehow
    1 point
  27. Ok I really hope when camos are added to the game I hope we can add logos and such on the decks like with Bismarck. Now I know in real life the reason they did this so aircraft won't get confused and attack they're own ships. The Italians are the best example of this they're red and white stripe decks.
    1 point
  28. Excellent mod!!! In the CSA campaign on BG difficulty, is it better to start raising economy or politics at the beginning?
    1 point
  29. Personally I find this introduction of additional bling underwhelming. AI, damage model, armour model and damage control are where things have stalled. Second tier I'd add the other core factors of the gunnery model itself (any of you notice a ship doing 0.1kn can put the exact same penalty on your gunnery as a ship doing 30kn, for example? LOLWTF), manoeuvring (ship performance but also formation station keeping) and visibility (how do the devs justify early 1900's ships being able to shoot at ships they can't see simply because another of their ships can? I'd really like to know how tha
    1 point
  30. Which hulls are you referring to in game? Because historically they got more hydrodynamic is the word I believe. So thinner pointed fronts to cut through the water. You can look at the post 1936ish battleship's all had the standard elongated bow which widened towards the turrets (even the yamato class). And in terms of keeping the same width throughout the ship the historical picture's I posted once it gets past the initial bow so about the first turret it reaches the max width of the ship. Which it would stay for the remainder of the citadel belt. Please see the attached picture which
    1 point
  31. Well, we have Yamato, Iowa/South Dakota/North Carolina, Bismarck, and now Richelieu... that leaves just King George V, Sovetskii Soyuz, and Littorio for our cadre of modern battleships.
    1 point
  32. Ah Jack's innate sense of humour 😉
    1 point
  33. But will the dog watches be curr-tailed?
    1 point
  34. Just tell me when and where to preorder... I would love to start playing this game.
    1 point
  • Newsletter

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