Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/23/2020 in all areas

  1. Anyways shush. Lets just start the prediction game again, since we don't have anything better to do. I say last week of October as i got clapped in my previous prediction, probs will in this one as well. I also reckon the campaign won't arrive till like march next year maybe april.
    5 points
  2. Listen........I just wanna get my French Navy on.
    4 points
  3. Yes yes, the French are one of a kind, but to me at least, it's what makes them so very fun!
    3 points
  4. I know, specially the naval side, but screw it, I've been waiting for the big boys to arrive ever since Naval was announced and they are finally here. I'm ready to spend ungodly amounts of money to get them
    3 points
  5. People gettin' dramatic up in here and we're just like "... quad guns pls?"
    3 points
  6. I think it will be the first week in November. But I hope that the update will come sooner. I just can't wait for it.
    3 points
  7. Gunna jinx it again barney
    3 points
  8. sorta up in the air lol nobody really knows. Im hoping next week but idk
    3 points
  9. I could imagine on of those meme screams when it starts tipping over and as it hits the water it makes poi sound. This all from a camera at the top and filmed so it looks realistic lol.
    2 points
  10. Well we definitely need more pagoda towers.
    2 points
  11. Some players did some digging into the few frames we got, and were able to somewhat identify the ships shown. From what they found it goes... Nassau, Gangut, Dante Alighieri, Kawachi, and the third one still somewhat unknown but is predicted to be Dreadnought
    2 points
  12. Those look really nice, hope we get more russian ships in (or just more ships in-general lol)
    2 points
  13. Imperial Russian Navy 1914 16"/45 quad turret for Gavrilov and Bubnov battleships projects (1914) and Imperial Russian Navy Kostenko battleship variant 2 with tripple 16'/45 turrets (1916)
    2 points
  14. Yes but the technology in game will arrive at different times and the tactics in game can be completely different. As i pointed out while yes 18 inch guns might have been the answer for the yamato maybe because of your economic situation in game something else entirely will form. Tactics for example can change due to a game meta, It might be more efficient to build 100 destroyers and use them just because the economy dictates that we can use more destroyers with loads of torpedos because its more cost effective than using a BB. This games meta will form based of what works or not even if
    2 points
  15. You missed the point. Yamato (at least in being actually built) is the culmination of the armored big gun warship. The treaties did not create the environment that led to it, the technology, tactics, and literally the physics did. The game simulates that environment period. There is no debating it, why? Because we aren't playing a hex board game with dice rolls. This game simulates every projectile, the ship's movement that is firing it and the movement of the ship being fired at, the armor it hits and trajectory that it hits at. What @Steeltrap, me, and others are asking for, is that si
    2 points
  16. With respect to the possible differences in fusing it's far more complicated than the issue of time delay alone, given there also are matters of base or nose and caps and a host of other things. Regardless, the explosion of an HE shell on the surface is NOT a penetration, yet the game displays such hits AS penetrations while allowing the same armour to produce a ricochet of AP (which itself is almost entirely BS under those conditions except perhaps in a vanishingly small number of cases). Yet AP bounces almost always, and HE never does. If an HE shell were striking very thin armour
    2 points
  17. Agreed, except the problem as it stands is we are NOT doing that, not even close. It's still not clear to me what the "it's not meant to be a sim" minded people think of the list of issues I've pointed out. Do none of them trouble them? To be clear, I am not meaning that as any sort of slight for those less interested in somewhat more realistic mechanics, I'm simply curious as to how far from any claim to realism the game needs to be before it will trouble them. As I've said many, many times, I don't expect "realism" because there's no such thing with today's technology. But I won't
    2 points
  18. I have been following the progress of this game for a while now. It mostly looks amazing but there have been two issues that have kept me from buying it. First issue was the high top speeds that could be achieved without really compromising anything else in a ship design. I'm no longer that worried about this as the achievable and practical top speeds have been toned down in couple updates. They still seem to be higher than what was historically common but maybe the requirements of campaign mode will address that. --- The second, and more significant, issue is the extreme prominence
    1 point
  19. How about port holes? These ships had rows of them along the hull and superstructure
    1 point
  20. They are strict but not opposed to adding prototypes, only reason Tiger 2 105, Panther 2, and Coelian which were mostly just paper and never built, were added so Germany would have something more then just 2 tanks at top tier. But mostly only prototypes that were built are added to the game and mainly as premium vehicles or event rewards. Main tech tree stuff will usually be entered into full production and into service or went through extensive testing but just didnt make it into full production.
    1 point
  21. Yeah, i know just got the T-14 armata close to getting the leopard 2AX. The game is still pretty mediocore and frustrating many bugs ive experienced since 2016 are still there which is pretty bad, just lootbox fap atm. Also the new raid mission is terrible four camos for four tier 10 vehicles (two mbt's leclerc and xm1a3 and two other vehicles), Glops is also boring as hell, they got rid of the unique maps and just rehashed existing maps, they've released like 4 maps in four years lol probs a few more but i never see them. PVP is f*cking godawful avoid it at all costs, glops is someh
    1 point
  22. Armored Warfare? Last time I played AW it took me maybe a month to get Tier X MBT by playing PvE ( PvE is best feature in AW #ChangeMyMind )
    1 point
  23. Pretty lethal depending on how much experience you put towards secondaries gunnery. Works similar to bomber gunners iirc, and bomber gunners at max experience can easily snipe the pilot of a fighter with in a few seconds if the fighter pilot player is not careful.
    1 point
  24. Probably after cruiser, with their BRs starting at around 4.0 or something like that, below where Graf Spee and the WW2 cruisers are. I started playing War Thunder way back when it was still just about planes, now a days I am mostly a tanker at high tiers and every now and then play naval.
    1 point
  25. Oh? But the grind doe. Takes forevah. Took me ages just to get the T-14 armata in aw. still stuck on the tiger 2 in warthunder.
    1 point
  26. Moar Hitachi pics. Ill add materials too her so she looks more like a ship and easier to see details. Enjoy!
    1 point
  27. well they better hurry, cause now at least for me, they have a time limit before my attention goes else where https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmMvGqzvmXM War Thunder just dropped a teaser, a rarity from them, and one of the things in it is Battleships
    1 point
  28. As before, last Friday of November. Possibly the last Friday of December. Perhaps even the last Friday of January next year. The point is, I'm not holding out for it dropping any time soon.
    1 point
  29. I changed the AIScalingExperienceMultiplier to 0.85 and refought 1st Manassas, I didn't mind the Union having more troops so I left the SizeMultiplier at 1. It was touch and go for about 2 hours, I was able to hold Mathews Hill for about 1 hour and repulsed the unions initial assault with 4 Brigades, once they fell back I realized they would come back and I could not stop them so I fell back to Youngs Branch, however Franklins Brigade decided to charge me down the hill and killed General Bee and routed his brigade. I had to pause the game and take a walk at this point. Bartow
    1 point
  30. 1 point
  31. The other model isn't mine, but im using it as a base comparison. But yeah gives you a nice visual side-by side of how tall, wide, long etc each ship is. Might do that at some point with my other ships even if they aren't textured, just line them up. Although ill have to watch the poly count in-case blender doesn't decide to blow up lol. Also thonks! 'w'
    1 point
  32. Woooow, I love these types of comparisons! Well done!
    1 point
  33. Here are the comparisons. A lot bigger than i was expecting lol. quite the chonk, at least if i need the historical hull i can just copy yamato's. Either way hitachi isn't a yamato, but it's own ship really, but looks similar to her.
    1 point
  34. You keep missing the point so much that i have to make a reply or i will punch my screen. The whole point is to create a basic "simulated" game enviroment (physics that etc. that simulate real life) even is slightly abstract form. It doesn't matter if your ship is fictional or not what matters is that core mechanics that stem from physics etc. and in interactions between those mechancis and physics give results similair to reality. When you have that you can put 2 historical ships against eachother and have a realistic outcome or you can plug a ship you designed against a ship
    1 point
  35. She is like a compact version of the Yamato. One guns less but on the other hand she had massive secondary broadside and if those are dual purpose than the AA is also excellent. Nice work!
    1 point
  36. Realistic simulation (of the technological and physical factors that influenced ship design) is not the same as historical determinism (not allowing the player to make different choices under the same set of “rules” that are grounded in reality that were present historically). Kerbal Space Program, for example, has no connection to any actual history and clearly does not force the player to recreate a particular history, but is nonetheless is built on a fairly realistic simulation of spaceship design and the various physical constraints and real world trade-offs that influence it.
    1 point
  37. I'd be absolutely up to contribute. I hope @Nick Thomadis and the rest of the dev team know we're so dedicated/such a pain in the arse (delete as appropriate) because we love this game, love the concept, secretly wish we were working on it too, and want it to be the absolute best it can be. But in the same spirit I'd like the opportunity to put on record what we do like compared to other similar games, and especially (for our older residents) the changes they've made that have really improved the game since early alpha. (In fact, since I've only been here a few months, I'd like to read that to
    1 point
  38. 145 usd/122 euros, for the limited founder pack for sea legends is very steep, its more price than ultimate edition games of triple a developers for instance. assassin's creed valhalla ultimate edition pc (ubisoft) is 110 euros pre-order. Also, i've been playing naval action since it came out in early access on steam in 2016 and i clocked more than 2000 hours into it, also i own all the dlc. you could make a gesture towards veteran players who sunk a lot of time and money into naval action by selling them the game cheaper. il-2 sturmovik great battles did this for me when i bought the fl
    1 point
  39. Yes, there are a couple small reasons. When a gun shoots, it creates vibrations and a shock wave at the muzzle, which will disturb the trajectory of other shells in the vicinity. The guns in a triple or quad tend to be closer together than in a twin or several singles. The blast of one gun may therefore interfere with the others to a higher degree, if they are all fired at the same time. The shells might also collide or "kiss" midair, per US reports. This would be less likely if the shells started farther away from each other. These issues could be reduced with delay coils, so that the gu
    1 point
  40. 3-5 inch guns were rarely carried in triple or quad mounts. There did exist some examples: The British BL Mark IX 4in/45 (101.6mm) in a three-gun mount. These were on battlecruisers and on a monitor. The French Modele 1932 130mm/45 (5.1in) in a quadruple turret. These were on battleships only. The Italian Model 1937 135mm/45 (5.3in) in a three-gun turret. These were on battleships only. Why small triple or quad mounts were not used otherwise, I can't say for certain, but I think there may be some clues. Sheer size and number are factors. It may si
    1 point
  41. So after alpha 9 has gone through i wouldn't mind seeing a focus on, game mechanics such as bulkheads, the AI, gunnery and spotting since i have noticed cases where you can get spotted by the enemy and they can fire at your ships (this usually occurs below 1904) and you can do anything since they can't see them. Also we need a better armour system, and a more complex AI so that it is able to pull off various different tactics in the heat of battle or plan accordingly, on what the player has vs what they have (mainly the campaign as i don't expect the AI to retreat randomly in missions or
    1 point
  42. question, can one purpose built BB take on 99 early Bs? in a in the face, close range brawl? why yes. yes it can. and the visuals are glorious. i've never seen so many ammo detonations and turrets in the air at one time, once i dove into the enemy formation most of them ended up firing on each other.
    1 point
  43. But will the dog watches be curr-tailed?
    1 point
  44. 1.Give a choice to add sandbanks for ships to get stuck on. Or maybe even reefs that can rip open the bottom of your hull. And cause flooding. Also add a slider to decide how many sandbanks and reefs you want appearing. 2.Icebergs would be a nice addition as well. They can provide cover for smaller ships while also being dangerous if you crash into them. Imagine your rudder being taken out and your ship steers uncontrollably towards an iceberg. Weather effects combined with day and night settings will decide the visibility of the bergs, together with overall ship visibility,
    1 point
  45. Heroes Of The Soviet Union came back to balance us all
    1 point
  46. Aww, this is bloody brilliant. I would type moar, but i have work in the morning. But loving those chamges however. Those turrets look like they are made in blender, not sure if those are british and french turrets but eh. @HusariuS @Marshall99 @IronKaputt @Bluishdoor76 @BobRoss0902 @Koogus @Hangar18 @Aceituna @TotalRampage @1MajorKoenig @madham82 But yeah wasnt expecting anything like that at all. Time for smeggy work! ‘W’ And thanks for the progress so far cant wait to have dem quads (hope we get secondary quads) and formations. cheers bois. ’w’
    1 point
  47. +1 XD POTBS forever (oups.... 21 days to go) so i've heard : "Part of Dev team (if not all) onced played Potbs and that is why NA ever exist." "Potbs is the best mmo pvp game ever, and i'm quite sure a good part of NA playerbase come from Potbs. Never found a better mmo pvp thrill since NA. Both need organisation, good mood, and above all team practice." "I just think former Potbs players didn't get the pvp thrill in NA they had in Potbs, and many other things (Avcom, pve epic missions with ships and avatars, and above all true pvp). To me they just ask for too much
    1 point
  • Newsletter

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