Jump to content
Game-Labs Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/19/2021 in all areas

  1. This thread is a bit of an oof really. Imagine calling gamers stingy, because they won't frisbee their wallet at their monitors ok. I get they need monies, but it makes much more sense if they released expansion like DLC's rather than releasing tiny things that should of been in the game in the first place. Like the first two points you made for example. Either way if they don't provide a good enough product (which judging from progress and communication recently i seriously doubt this will be the case) i will move on to the next thing, if they do ill drop extra monies not exactly ha
    5 points
  2. here's a bit of a goofy scenario for those of you who are still reading this: Battlecruiser's Bane It is 1940. For some reason the British got their hands on a ship duplication device and decided to duplicate some battlecruisers. The high command are visibly worried, and have ordered you to create a battlecruiser-killer with a secret cloaking device that can absorb radar waves. The cloaking device will only work farther than 10 km away from the enemy ships. You may use whatever resources are required to achieve victory. The Brits were able to clone 10 battlecruisers before our spies
    2 points
  3. For those that may not have seen it, I'll just leave this here:
    2 points
  4. A "Guerre de Fer," if you will? As a gentleman of science and learned design, the player takes the role of a Jeune Ecole naval architect, wherein design points are awarded based on the gross absorption of snuff and cognac within the bloodstream, and design output determines available cognac and snuff. Pair with occasional society and bureau sidequests and you have an adventure game fit for a man of Blut und Eisen! Bloat your portfolio! Bloviate before the Board! Leak to the press! Wrangle contracts! Get box seats at the latest Wagner! 🧐
    2 points
  5. Yeah, I mean, signal lights are something which would potentially be a bit complex, but definitely not worth a full-blown DLC. And Camo even less worth it, really. In terms of what *would* be worth an expansion, airplanes in general definitely fits alright, beyond that, potentially either expansions going further back in time, or expansions which allow for even more absurd ships than are currently possible. (something which allows you to create sextuple 16" turrets, for example). I would say expansions in those veins can't go further forward than the early 1950s at the latest, because otherwis
    1 point
  6. .......WHAT? Now don't get me wrong this scenario sounds awesome and hilarious at the same time and I'm going to make this happen custom battle right now.
    1 point
  7. Hi there, my name is Jens, I am from Germany and since I was eight or so I am interested in warships. So I was overjoyed to finally get my hands on UAD. I really like it, some issues of course, but it is an alpha version. However...There are some little tiny things that I really do not like as much. -Computer-generated ships are often ridicously one-sided. Many of them pack an enormous amount of main weapons, randomly distributed around the hull. Probably to increase the chances of hitting anything at long range or so. That does not make much sense. I suspect there is a
    1 point
  8. Do you have any source baking that claim? What are these gamers you are talking about, some kind of new social class taken out of some corporate asses? The DLC and microtransactions model is successful and show video game players are clearly not that stingy about them, despite what you claim or what the ever few vocal minority like to rage about on social medias. Hell, they aren't that stingy when new generation games costs even more. They don't bat an eye when some known editors announce new subscription models for their catalogue. What about mobile games, do we need to talk about mobile
    1 point
  9. Damn I just realized the changelog has the full details and already read it, thanks for digging it up for me anyway!
    1 point
  10. Updated to 1.27.3d Remember we have a mod discord. You can join via this link here. https://discord.gg/NmHUGvq
    1 point
  11. There is some laughable stuff here, so I dont think mine are that impressive. But I think they can at least make you grin. My post needs a dosage of french pre-dreanoughts. Pre-dreanoughts are already known to be bulky ships, but the french toned them to 11. They essentially took the designs from ironclads, broadside frigates, predreanoughts, and literal bunker pillboxes, blended them togheder to come up with something that somehow floats, and called it a day: (Ordered by increasing ridicoulousness and size) The Masséna (thick) https://en.wik
    1 point
  12. Adding another era is definitely another big bite for the devs to take, and I understand if they want to stay focused for now on really nailing the Pre, Post , and Super Dreadnought eras. That being said, I feel like the basic game mechanics for ironclads about 1870 and after work about the same as the aforementioned eras. Yes, you'd have a lot of crazy experimental ships and brief moments where certain techs gain a big advantage, only to go completely by the wayside a few years later. Would I push for ironclads to get their treatment before the devs have fully fleshed out the 1890 and af
    1 point
  13. Just because the player can use an advanced feature does not mean the AI has to use it. This has already been discussed at length with regard to custom barbette placement. The AI can perfectly happily use one of the existing shell types.
    1 point
  14. On another note, something which might be interesting specifically for weird dorks like me, would be what I'd call 'complex mode'. Basically, continuing on from the idea of making ships modular, making gun turrets modular to at least a limited extent. This would include being able to input arbitrary gun calibers rather than having the 1" increments, to allow for unusual gun calibers like the 7.5" seen on ships like the Hawkins-class. This could potentially be coupled with being able to choose the size of a propellant charge and shell as well, maybe with some limitations for these to prevent co
    1 point
  15. In summation: Poor spotting values can lead to situations where small ships can fire away at larger ships with no chance of retaliation. General consensus amongst players consists of allowing for auto-spotting of ships when they open fire, but with hefty accuracy penalties until they become "naturally" spotted by said ships, and to possibly implement such penalties for all ships conducting "blindfire" I.E. firing at targets that the firing ship in question has not yet spotted themselves. @Nick Thomadis this is obviously not a priority compared to fixing formations and getting the campaig
    1 point
  • Newsletter

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